Here’s the good news. Women are doing better than ever in the workforce. And here’s some more good news – ethnic minorities are also thriving. So what’s the point of pouring millions of dollars into promoting and maintaining civil liberties groups? Isn’t it “job done” for such bodies?
Lots of discussion here in the UK about the role and relevance of Britain’s Equalities Commission. This piece feels that such groups are outdated and that it’s wrong to assume that all minorities share the same view.
“Don’t we need a big organisation committed to equality in the wider sense, and to human rights more generally? We certainly do. It’s called a government”
Last week President Obama spoke at the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) annual convention. Here’s a letter to the New York times from the NAACP responding to Obama’s comment about minorities taking individual responsibility. “Personal responsibility will not remove the barriers that a legacy of racism and exclusion has left for millions of African-Americans. “ They certainly feel there’s still a problem.
And many may feel that the recent Prof. Henry Gates affair has reinforced the need to keep such an organisation alive. This article argues that Obama would not be where he is today if it wasn’t for movements like the NAACP.
So do we still need civil liberties groups to fill in the gaps in society? Or are they an outdated group of organisations that just serve a small elite?