Sharpton Criticizes Rival (Dean)

Howard Dean's presidential campaign defended his record on minorities Tuesday after rival Al Sharpton resurrected a 1995 Dean comment that affirmative action should be based "not on race, but on class."

In a statement, Sharpton responded to the news that Democratic Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., planned to endorse Dean for president, sharply criticizing the former Vermont governor's record on affirmative action and gun rights.

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country," Sharpton said.

Sharpton also cited a Dean remark from April 9, 1995 in which he was questioned on affirmative action. Dean said: "You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

Dean's campaign had no comment on the 1995 remark.

<...>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/28/national1829EST0779.DTL

DTH

I am disappointed. Rev. Sharpton should realize that support for gun rights allows young black men the ability to defend themselves against racist violence, or police brutality.

that kills so many Black Americans every year (and every day for that matter).

I have personal reasons for not liking guns, no I didnt have a family member murdered but my uncle did shoot himself, yea a little lame I know, but I know what guns do. I dont like guns. I think it should be safe.

Gun rights for blacks so they can defend themselves against police brutality? I find no other way to interpret what you are saying than that you are stating your opinion that blacks need guns so they can shoot cops. I am speechless. I think you need to rethink this.

I support the right of people to defend themselves. People who murder police should be thrown in jail for life or executed. But nobody should be required to tolerate police brutality. Going through the legal motions is fine AFTER the attack has taken place, but when one is being beaten to a pulp one has the right to defend himself, no matter who the attacker is.

And to make yourself clear, you just said it again.

Like when he's beating you and it's in self defense.

Probably to death row, but at best you'll never see the light of day again, ESPECIALLY if you're a young black man.

because the overwhelming majority of blacks support gun control.

:crazy:

I dont know whether to laugh or cry at this level of ignorance.

His endorsement will not hold much sway among those keeping it real.

Sharpton is even more of an opportunist than either of the Jacksons.

we all no Sharpton is not a saint

.

article | Posted March 13, 2003

PAGES  prev  1 | 2 

Meet The Nation: Howard Dean
(page 2 of 2)


>>>>>>>
On many issues, Dean lines up--or ends up--on the left, though occasionally with a twist. Asked about affirmative action, he angrily assails Bush for dishonestly and exploitatively using the word "quotas" in attacking affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan. Yet he also calls for basing affirmative action on "income and class" distinctions as well as race. He believes portions of the USA Patriot Act "overreach," but, he says, "I haven't condemned Congress for passing" the legislation. It's only natural, he explains, that the lawmakers would overreact. The problem is, he explains, that Bush has appointed right-wing judges who will not provide any counterbalance to the excesses of the politicians. Dean maintains he doesn't "believe the war on drugs is a criminal matter; it's a public health matter. To throw users in jail is silly." But he cannot stand state initiatives that seek to legalize medical marijuana. >>>>>>>>>>

Dean manages the little twists to walk very thin lines.

Yet he also calls for basing affirmative action on "income and class" distinctions as well as race.

What part of that statement don't you like?

1) In his earlier statement in 1995, he suggested ELIMINATING race as a criteria, so the part I don't like is the part where he lies and says he never wanted to eliminate race as a criteria

2) On Deans website, he says:

"Unfortunately, Rev. Sharpton has rejected his own advice. The spirit of Rev. Sharpton's release in that regard is over-the-top and mostly inaccurate. Rev. Sharpton is inaccurate when he says that Howard Dean is 'opposed to affirmative action.' Even the 1995 quote he attributes to Gov. Dean is not a statement 'opposed' to affirmative action, but an argument for a broader criteria. More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires."

So tell me - If the law ALREADY requires that AA be based on "race, gender, and class", how does Dean's support for an AA based on "race, gender, and class" show that Dean supports "broader criteria" for AA?

3) AA is NOT based on class. Dean might want to brush up on civil rights law.

4) In the article cited, Dean doesn't deny making the 1995 statement. Instead, he attacks Sharpton for saying Dean opposes AA.

I can't answer your #1 because I haven't seen the 1995 statement and haven't had a chance to research it yet.

#2 - Dean has said that he wants to broaden AA by including class(income) as criteria.

#3 - Was just a snarky comment on your part

#4 - Dean has not attacked Sharpton. This is a statement from Jesse Jackson Jr. and he's responding to an attack by Sharpton.

1) FWIW, Dean hasn't denied making the statement.

2) "Class" is not "income", and income is already a criteria. So again, how is including something that is already included a "broadening" of the criteria?

3) Actually, you're right. I was a bit snarky. But still, Dean should learn a bit more about AA.

4) True, but it's up on Dean's website. Doesn't he have any responsibility for his campaign?

2) "Class" is not "income", and income is already a criteria. So again, how is including something that is already included a "broadening" of the criteria?

You broaden it by making class(income), regardless of race, a criteria.

So how does including income, which is already included, "broaden" the criteria?

you may want to read.

Next step on affirmative action? Base it on income
By Samuel G. Freedman
Now that affirmative action has narrowly survived the Supreme Court challenge, albeit in diminished and vulnerable form, America needs to think about the day after. For 40 years, culminating in the University of Michigan case, this debate has offered a collision of absolutes, pitting recognition of the damage caused by slavery and segregation against the idea of a color-blind country. Monday's split rulings provide more reason than ever to forge a third way.

<snip>

A system of affirmative action based entirely and exclusively on family income would resist attack as a form of racial favoritism, even as it would disproportionately assist blacks and Hispanics, who form a disproportionate share of the nation's poor. It would continue the unfinished business of fairness and equality.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-24-oplede_x.htm

is that it's not just one program with one set of guidelines. The guidelines for college admissions are different than the guidelines for employment, and the guidelines for private entities are different than the guidelines for public entities (ie. govt agencies, etc). Capice?

Another point of information is that the purpose of AA is to remediate and decrease the ongoing "social and/or economic disadvantagement" of people due to discrimination.

So, to start off with, can we agree that when it comes to employment, it makes little sense to use income as a criteria? If a candidate is qualified for the position, (and please note that AA does nothing for unqualified job applicants) that suggests the candidate has some experience, and therefor will have an income somewhat commensurate with that experience. If it's an entry-level job, then what does the previous pay have to do with the current job and how is it an indication of "social and/or economic disadvantagement"?

If so, that leaves higher education. Are you really unaware that nearly all colleges and universities use income as a factor in achieving diversity and combatting discrimination?

WRT to the op-ed you posted, I have only one question - How does eliminating race as a factor, and using income instead, remedy the racial discrimination some non-poor minorities experience?

We already have programs for the poor, and I'm all for expanding them. But why should we eliminate the only significant program that seeks to remediate and discourage racial (and other forms of) discrimination, which is something povery programs are not designed to do?

Anyone who says that AA should be expanded to include class is probably talking about higher education, where there already is some unofficial "AA" that takes things like family income and region into account.

The promise is to "add" something (class/income) to AA which is already including in return for removing something (race).

And to add insult to injury, this is described as "broadening the criteria"

He knew he couldn't just say that it should not be done by race but by income as he had in the past, because he was running for president. So...he says "as well as race" when he doesn't mean it.

Sorry. I know that you and others believe in his conversion to populism, but, I do not. I certainly wouldn't vote for a 10 month old populist. What convictions does he bring with him?

Statement by Rep. Jesse L. Jackson on Howard Dean's Record

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson issued a statement today responding to an attack on Howard Dean by Rev. Al Sharpton. The New York Times announced earlier today that Rep. Jackson will support Governor Dean's campaign in the coming weeks.

Congressman Jackson stated:

When it comes to addressing issues that directly affect African Americans, and indirectly affects all Americans, Gov. Dean clearly has good record. Up until this point -- until I indicated my intention to endorse Gov. Dean -- the Democratic campaign has been free of such racial rhetoric. I would recommend that it remain so. Such rhetoric will not contribute to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Indeed, it will insure his re-election.

Jackson Urges Democrats to Accentuate the Positive

Calls On All Democrats To Reject Racial Rhetoric

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson today said, "Al Sharpton is making a great contribution to the Democratic Party with his performances in the debates, his inspirational speeches on the campaign trail, his raising of the political consciousness of voters on issues that many of the other candidates will not touch, and by bringing new voters into the process.

"But no contribution of the Rev. Al Sharpton has been greater than the role he has played of statesman in the debates - of urging fellow competitors to 'first do not harm' to one another. It was Al Sharpton who said in the first debate in South Carolina, televised by ABC, that the 'Democrats should not have a debate and George Bush turn out to be the winner.' He has constantly reminded his fellow Democratic presidential candidates that the goal is to defeat President Bush in November, 2004. He has also said that while he understands there will be competition between each of them, none of them should do any harm to the other candidates that would prevent them from defeating George Bush.

"Unfortunately, Rev. Sharpton has rejected his own advice. The spirit of Rev. Sharpton's release in that regard is over-the-top and mostly inaccurate. Rev. Sharpton is inaccurate when he says that Howard Dean is 'opposed to affirmative action.' Even the 1995 quote he attributes to Gov. Dean is not a statement 'opposed' to affirmative action, but an argument for a broader criteria. More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires.

"Whoever the ultimate nominee of the Democratic Party is I intend to support -- and I will not agree with them on every issue. Gov. Dean and I may just have to agree to disagree on the death penalty. However, I would remind Rev. Sharpton that both he and I supported Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 even though he supported the death penalty and ending welfare as we know it -- both of which we disagreed with.

"With respect to gun control, Gov. Dean supports all of the common sense FEDERAL laws and proposed laws with respect to renewal of the assault weapons ban, holding gun manufacturers responsible, adequately checking purchasers at gun shows. But beyond that he argues that different states have different needs, and I agree. Not every state values hunters and hunting equally and I respect and agree with Gov. Dean in that regard.

"I don't understand why I am being singled out. Rep. Major Owens, from New York, endorsed Gov. Dean some time ago, but none of these issues were raised. No member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has endorsed Rev. Sharpton, and there were other members of the CBC in the New York Times article who indicated that they too may be on the verge of endorsing Gov. Dean.

"I also don't understand Rev. Sharpton's attempt to introduce 'race' into the campaign by using such rhetoric as 'anti-black' with respect to Gov. Dean. I challenge all of the other candidates to urge Rev. Sharpton to resist using such inflammatory rhetoric.

"Clearly, Gov. Dean is not anti-black and it is ridiculous for Rev. Sharpton to compare him to President George Bush in that regard. When it comes to addressing issues that directly affect African Americans, and indirectly affects all Americans, Gov. Dean clearly has good record. Up until this point -- until I indicated my intention to endorse Gov. Dean - the Democratic campaign has been free of such racial rhetoric. I would recommend that it remain so. Such rhetoric will not contribute to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Indeed, it will insure his re-election."

Posted by Joe Rospars at 07:30 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002031.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=188605

The statement says:

"Even the 1995 quote he attributes to Gov. Dean is not a statement 'opposed' to affirmative action, but an argument for a broader criteria. More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires."

If AA is already based on "race, gender and class", then how is Dean's support for an AA based on "race, gender and class" "an argument for a broader criteria"?

How is "support for what exists" the same as "support for a broader criteria"?

A workout in linguistic gymnastics won't change the fact that Dean is pro AA.

Dean recently said (as opposed to what he said in 1995) that AA is based on race, gender, and class, and not just race.

And Dean is wrong. Class has nothing to do with AA.

.

It's up on Dean's website. Don't you think Dean is responsible for his own campaign, and the statements it makes and promotes?

I read it a little different: Base AA on class and opportunity and not race.

what he's talking about.

I have not researched the details of affirmative action law. But I do trust Rep. Jackson on the subject:

…
Unfortunately, Rev. Sharpton has rejected his own advice. The spirit of Rev. Sharpton's release in that regard is over-the-top and mostly inaccurate. Rev. Sharpton is inaccurate when he says that Howard Dean is 'opposed to affirmative action.' Even the 1995 quote he attributes to Gov. Dean is not a statement 'opposed' to affirmative action, but an argument for a broader criteria. More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires.
…

if he thinks AA already uses class as a criteria

I really appreciate the way you back that up with so many facts. I'm going have to bookmark it and read it later when I have more time.

But just one question: How do you measure class/opportunity

Income decides class (lower, middle, upper). Income decides opportunity (little, good, great).

They are just different terms for the same concept.

if you think "income decides class". I guess you've never heard of "new money". And income is already a criteria.

And if class is income (which is already included) then how does adding class (which is income, which is already included) broaden the criteria?

Can you tell me how including class/income "broadens" the criteria when AA already includes income?

Can you tell me how excluding race "broadens" the criteria?

anyone?

and class is impossible to take into account. How do you measure "class"? By income? (AA already take income into account, so any claim that Dean was referring to income is erroneous)

And why shouldn't AA use race as a criteria?

Does anyone have a clue?

My guess it had to do with an issue in Vermont several years back (according to my brother who lives there) concering the state's difficulty fulfilling affirmative action standards because so few African Americans live in Vermont.

In fact, African Americans make up 1/2 of 1 percent of the population in Vermont:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/Tabular/040/04000US501.htm

Consequently, it's quite possible Dean was saying that considering the state's demographics, "we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

AA, contrary to Bush* lies, does not rely on any quotas. The criteria for AA is based on achieving some sort of reasonable relationship between the # of people hired from various groups and the # of qualified applicants from various groups. If black make up only 0.5% in VT, then AA would find a hiring of approx 0.5% perfectly appropriate.

A lack of diversity in a population doesn't make it any easier or harder to fulfill AA's goals because AA's goals are based on how much (or how little) diversity there is in the population.

You don't know anything about the situation.

I based my explanation on a situation in which complaints were made in 1995 by African American members of the Univ. of Vermont who charged that the campus was not doing enough to court black students, even though (according to my brother) the university's percentages reflected the state's percentages.

Here's their compaint to the university. Note they do not mention "quotas" but a failure "to bring about the kind of representative diversity needed by an international research institution":
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:zWK0GI6Bg0cJ:www.uvm.edu/~jashley/resolution.html+%22affirmative+action%22+Vermont+1995+dean&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I'm not surprised that you don't "buy it." It appears you don't "buy" anything that conflicts with your endless pursuit of the destruction of Howard Dean's reputation.

I quite clearly said it was Bush* who uses the word. Here is what I said:

"AA, contrary to Bush* lies, does not rely on any quotas"

I don't see your name in there anywhere.

You confused me at first because you said that "the state" had a problem fulfilling AA's standard, which made me think you were referring to government hiring in the State of VT. I now see you're talking about admissions to schools, which is a different matter because schools and workplaces have different goals.

As a recent SCOTUS decision shows, exposing students to people from a diversity of backgrounds is an important and legitimate goal for AA programs in higher education. If race were prohibited as a criteria for AA in higher education (as Dean's 1995 statement suggests), how could this legitimate goal be achieved?

Racial minorities have suffered diminished "opportunities to participate" due to overt discrimination. Because of the diminished opportunities to participate, members of racial minorities are more frequently found in lower socioeconomic classes.

This approach would seem to cover the members of minority communities that suffer from racial discrimination as well as perhaps members of the non-minority community that suffer socioeconomic discrimination. Sounds like a win-win to me.

School testing has shown one thing in Fla. Socioeconomic class of the student population shows the most direct correlation to performance. This, I suspect has more to do with a two tiered public school system as the correlation is stronger against this metric than any other.

minority members who are NOT poor but have been disadvantaged by discrimination? It's not only the poor who are discriminated against.

"Al Sharpton is working hard and doing a good job of pushing for a Democratic Party agenda with a full inclusion of the issues that matter most to African Americans and working families. If media exposure was his only concern, he would do better by running in the General Election as an Independent. But Sharpton has chosen not to be a spoiler. His bottom line is the same as mine -- retire George W. Bush before he totally wrecks our democracy.

"To achieve our common ground goal of a Democrat in the White House, Howard Dean is the only candidate with a clear enough vision combined with toughness and independence. With respect to African American concerns, Dean starts with an evolving slate. The "doors of his church" are wide open to a broad spectrum of African American leadership. After his election, Howard Dean can be expected to bring into his circle of new national leadership more Black leaders than any of the other candidates. He has this flexibility because he doesn't owe the establishment any dues.

"And no one should go forth with the mistaken assumption that the vital issue of war and peace is not important to the African American constituency. When the Congressional Black Caucus members overwhelmingly voted against the waste of 87 billion dollars in Iraq, they were expressing the will of the people in our neighborhoods who insist that our needs be met here at home first. Our people, our rank and file is already with Howard Dean. Black leaders must run to catch up."

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002032.html

Agree with death penalty criticism. that is fair.

Affirmitive action is not. Saying that affirmative action should be based on class is not that revolutionary. We have an obligation to both the urban and rural poor in this society, regardless of race. They deserve opportunities and a fair playing field which takes into account the disadvantages of their background. You forget Dean was the governor of a rural white state. Of course he was pushing for affirmative action for the poor in his state. He wouldn't be doing his job if he did otherwise.

Same with gun control. Gun violence is not a problem in Vermont. Why would they need gun control. Areas with gun violence problems should be free to impose whatever laws they need to control the problems, but they shouldn't legislate the rights away from areas that don't need those type of laws. How many african americans died because of gun laws in vermont? None.

JK has had his share, and for commments more provocative than Dean's. Last August Tim Russert questioned Kerry about this statement he made in the 90's:

“...today the civil rights arena is controlled by lawyers and the winners and losers determined by...rules most Americans neither understand nor are sympathetic with. ...This shift in the civil rights agenda has directed most of out attention and much of our hope into one inherently limited and divisive program: affirmative action...We must be willing to acknowledge publicly what we know to be true: that just as the benefits to America of affirmative action cannot be denied,
neither can the costs...The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms.”
http://www.msnbc.com/news/960385.asp

In that same speech, Kerry said about AA, "there is a negative side and we can no longer simply will away the growing consensus of perception within America's white majority. We must be willing to acknowledge publicly what we know to be true: that just as the benefits to America of affirmative action cannot be denied, neither can the costs.''
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/janwayne.html

"Mend it, don't end it" which Clinton came out with in 1995. The basic idea behind this phrase was to eliminate quotas, an idea that many liberals, including JaneQPublic, agrees with. So did Kerry, and if you read the 2nd link JaneQPublic has provided, it says that clearly.

I work in a city with several different elementary schools and due to residential differences there are redical differences between them. To take two examples. One of our schools is in a largely upper class mostly white area. That school has some students from a local housing project as well. Thus this school, which is our city's best elementary has some poorer students. It also has some professional minority children.

A different school is about 1/2th white and 1/2 minority. It serves an overwhelmingly poor area. Children routinely show up late and unprepared for school.

The first school produces 6th graders that are significantly better prepared for junior high school. They have good homework habits, know how to behave in school, and show up prepared to work. The second school has 6th graders who are significantly behind in math and reading, poor homework habits, and significant attendence and behavior issues.

Now I do understand why the minority students in the first school are entitled to and do need some form of afirmative action to make up for discrimination. But just what justification is there for saying those mostly poor, deprived whites in the second school don't also deserve some form of afirmative action? After all they aren't getting a better education than the minorities in the first school.

In fact, if you divided AA's beneficiaries by race, the largest group would be white.

And stated his concerns well.
I share those concerns about Dean.
I'm not beating up on Dean; he's a good candidate!
But he, like all candidates, has stances I dislike.

The death penalty does target those of color (unless
they're rich). Affirmative action-duh. Anti affirmative
action=anti-African American. The NRA is a racist org
and Dean gets their top rating.

(Reference:
See Bowling for Columbine and Heston's "ethnicity" remarks.
Plus the *alleged* links between the NRA and the KKK,
which is something I admittedly haven't researched
sufficiently...yet.)

*This* is the time the Dem candidates are defining their platforms.
So this is the time that we should be demanding that each of the
Dem candidates, not just Dean, define a platform that reflects
the will of the people.

I applaud Rev Sharpton for doing just that.
We should all be contacting all viable Dem candidates
and urging them to change policies we don't like, and
explain remarks we don't like. Six months from now will
be too late. They'll each have defined platforms and we'll
be stuck with them. Right now they're malleable.

Affirmative action should be based on INCOME. Why should rich black folks get preference over poor white folks?

Racism exists on all levels, not just based on income. Compare getting a mortgage across the same income spectrum, you'll find blacks are disproportiontely denied loans compared to whites. Look at educational access, jobs offers, and job income and you'll see the same.

That is color is a factor not only for poor blacks....but for most blacks. If you are trying to catch that taxi in New York, think the cab driver looks at your bank statement prior to passing you by?

Do you think that a black "middle income" person looking for an apartment is not going to be discriminated against if a white "middle income" person is looking at that same apartement in a predominately white area????

or.......
When the job applicant's name is Lakiesha, do you think she's as sure to have her resume looked at as closely as Heather's .....

Think NOT!

I am black/French (biracial)...and I have black children...and Dean has just fallen down pretty far on my list. He certainly needs to address this issue and speak as though he understands it and the plight of minorities. Remember, you can take a poor white person, put a suit on him....and he will not be followed in the store.

Currently, Dean has expressed the same wishy washy views as Bush on this issue...Bush also wants to change AA to be about class/income.

Maybe that is why Black voters appreciate Wesley Clark
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm

October 24, 2003
BY WESLEY CLARK
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
When I left the military and contemplated entering political life, many issues led me to find my political home in the Democratic Party. Affirmative action was one of the most important. This is an issue that Democrats both understand well and feel deeply. And, based on my experiences, I believe without hesitation that we Democrats are right in our belief that affirmative action is good for all Americans.
----------------
Racial hatred has deep and pernicious roots in our nation's history. It is a cancer that needs to be cured, and affirmative action has been one of the most effective treatments
----------------
There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: It works
----------------
If we make room for everybody, there will be more room for everybody. An integrated America, where each and every American is treated with the same dignity and respect, is a better America for everyone.

Until that day arrives, every day the thousands of small and not-so-small judgments, discriminations and insults that some Americans must endure is an affront to us and all we stand for. And we are not going to remedy these injustices by ignoring them.

Democrats have always believed that our diversity is our greatest strength, whether in our schools, our workplaces, our government or our courts. Unlike the ideologues who deny the facts and denounce affirmative action, we will work for an America where everyone has a chance to contribute -- and receives the respect each and every American deserves.

when it affects poor people? Is it any less of a crime to steal from the middle class or the rich?

Why should rich black folks get preference over poor white folks?

They don't

Sharpton Calls Dean's Agenda 'Anti-Black'

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton launched a blistering attack on Howard Dean yesterday, accusing his rival of promoting an "anti-black agenda."

"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country," Sharpton said in a statement.

He said his comments were in response to a news report yesterday that Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) plans to endorse Dean, the former Vermont governor and presumed front-runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Sharpton has had a long-standing rivalry with the congressman's father, Jesse L. Jackson, who twice ran for president.

"Any so-called African American leader that would endorse Dean despite his anti-black record is mortgaging the future of our struggle for civil rights and social justice," Sharpton said.

His statement cited a 1995 interview in which Dean appeared to question the need for affirmative action programs based solely on race. "I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based not on race but on class," Dean said on CNN's "Late Edition."

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31895-2003Oct28.html

DTH