|The Gratz decision is a travesty and goes against the ...||Live Steam|
Jun 24, 2003 2:01 PM
|14th Amendment, Section 1. Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution. How did we end up with jurists on the Supreme Court that can't follow the spirit and intent of the Constitution they swore to protect?
The ruling on the Michigan case has proven that discrimination is now sanctioned by the federal government. The diversity that the ruling seeks to foster and protect will be a casualty of this irresponsible decision. Many poor students from minorities other than black, will suffer as a result. They may lose a spot on a college campus because they have the wrong skin color. I don't see this as being fair and equitable. Affirmative action is really a negative stigma placed upon the black population, and the Dumocrats couldn't be happier. Unfortunately I don't like what I hear coming from the White House on this issue either.
|Why nobody is proud of Affirmative Action||Spoiler|
Jun 24, 2003 3:54 PM
|People claim that they are for affirmative action. So this means it is a good thing.
If you label a new employee an "affirmative action hire", they should be proud right? This new hire is supposed to be a working symbol of the work place's efforts to diversify.
Wrong. It's considered an insult. You might as well have used the "n" word.
We're in a wierd paradox. The same people that push affirmative action as a policy denounce it as a label.
|Cited by Justice Scalia in supporting his vote||Live Steam|
Jun 24, 2003 6:06 PM
|Frederick Douglass, speaking to a group of abolitionists almost 140 years ago, delivered a message lost on today's majority:
``(I)n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ...And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ...(Y)our interference is doing him positive injury.'' What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991)
No matter how it is wrapped, affirmative action is offensive and hurts everyone - even those that it is meant to assist.
|Here's a question for Doug||Spoiler|
Jun 24, 2003 7:43 PM
|In an important qualification, O'Connor noted that the Constitution forbids permanent racial classifications. From the Washington Post:
(Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) said that Affirmative action at universities "must be limited in time," she wrote, adding that states that continue to use race-conscious admissions in their university systems should aspire to move beyond them, applying lessons from the race-neutral policies used in California, Florida and Washington, where affirmative action has been abolished.
"We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today," O'Connor wrote."
How unusual is it for the Supreme Court to make mention of a time limit, a specific year when it's current decision may be invalid?
|Here's a question for Doug||Live Steam|
Jun 25, 2003 3:56 AM
|She didn't do her job. Her ruling was an admission and a cop out. She knows the proper interpretation of the law, but refused to deliver a ruling that would hurt her standing with the left. End of story. I am willing to bet that most of the rulings that have come down from the Supreme Court over the past 30 - 40 years go against the spirit and intent of the Constitution. May be a broad statement, so I'll need to do a little research. I hope Doug can weigh in on that too :O)|
|I've got it!||Spoiler|
Jun 25, 2003 11:57 AM
|25 years from now, whites will be a minority. This will put them in a position to receive more job offers from aa than other ethnic groups. If affirmative action winds up being a policy that starts favoring whites for jobs, it's definitely time to do away with it.|
Jun 27, 2003 7:01 AM
|My guess is that she meant there must continue to be a proven need for it, not simply perpetuation for it's own sake. Also, if it's tried for 50 years and still isn't working, maybe there really isn't a justification for it. In other words, a "reality test".
|Steam, my good friend, this is a first.||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 4:44 AM
|I agree with you 100 percent. Maybe it's Frederick Douglass' eloquence that makes me think you sound smart here!|
|:O) Hey I figured the board needed some spicing up!||Live Steam|
Jun 25, 2003 4:51 AM
|100%? Which part of the 100% do you agree with?|
|:O) Hey I figured the board needed some spicing up!||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 4:59 AM
|Well, you only wrote one sentence yourself, and I agree with it: 'No matter how it is wrapped, affirmative action is offensive and hurts everyone - even those that it is meant to assist.'
You ought to limit yourself to one sentence more often -- gives you less chance to veer into nuttiness!
I also like the DOuglass quote. Exactly right on.
|Yeah, you have to feel for the oppressed white male....||Silverback|
Jun 24, 2003 4:07 PM
|After 200 years on top, we're going to have to stand in line with everybody else. Doggone.|
|Your reading comprehension skills are lacking||Live Steam|
Jun 24, 2003 5:50 PM
|I said nothing about white vs black. I did say that other minorities will suffer as a consequence of the ruling. The Asian, Philippino, Mexican will lose out. However while your on the subject, why should a white kid with better grades get turned away because of some quota? Doesn't a poor white kid deserve the same opportunities as a poor black kid? I do not see the equity in the ruling. I also don't buy your 200 year crap. That is just a lame excuse for lack of self dicipline and personal responsibility. How many blacks do you know who can trace their ancestry back to slavery? Many of the blacks living in the states are transplanted from the Jamaica, Haiti, Nigeria, etc. Should these same people qualify because of your stupid 200 year remark?|
|Ah, THAT'S better! That's the Steam I know!||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 4:56 AM
|Now you're sounding like a crackpot again!
I doubt a significant percentage of blacks in America derives from non-African, non-slave backgrounds. And it's not 'lame' to take into account the historical ('200 year crap')roots of our race problems in this country.
Whites did indeed create a black underclass, and now we're living with the consequences. So the descendants of the class that created the problem do have a historical, if not necessarily personal, obligation to sort things out (assuming they WANT things sorted out; it's conceivable some might want to perpetuate the problem.)
That said, I don't have the faintest tinge of personal 'liberal guilt' about blacks, and I think affirmative action has long outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any. In fact, my analysis of AA is that it's paternalistic, even imperialist, in perpetuating a 'stigmatized class.' If I were black, I'd have none of it.
|"I think affirmative action has long outlived its usefulness"||Live Steam|
Jun 25, 2003 5:01 AM
|Wow. And you call yourself a card carrying liberal? Doesn't this go against the talking points for the party? Bill and the pit bull will be very upset you know. You sounded a little like El Rushbo there for a minute :O)|
|You ought to know by now that||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 5:07 AM
|I don't always toe the party line. Unlike you guys!|
|Ah, THAT'S better! That's the Steam I know!||Live Steam|
Jun 25, 2003 5:23 AM
My point was that the majority of blacks in America cannot trace their ancestory back to slavery in definitive terms. If you want to say that someone that is a black American is more likely than not to have had great ancestors that were slaves, OK. However the article I posted does show how the black population has grown through immigration. It also sheds light on how those immigrants feel about the issue of slavery. They believe that the more one revisits the issue the harder it is to shake the stigma associated with it. Conservatives have been saying this for years. Liberals have just used the issue to stir feelings of resentment in order to develop an us (Liberal Democrat) against them (conservative Republican) attitude. This has not helped the black population in any way.
|I think race is like Vietnam.||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 5:26 AM
|We should just declare victory and go home.|
Jun 25, 2003 6:58 AM
|Some common sense from both ends of the political spectrum...for a change! Steam, you make a lot more impact when you simply argue a point without resorting to the adjectives and namecalling. BTW, I've always thought quotas were patronizing and simply reinforced structural racism.|
Jun 25, 2003 7:20 AM
|Do I really do a lot of name calling? For example I know I call Ed a panty waste liberal, but that is done with affection :O) No disrespect intended. Really! I have never really disparaged anyone here - at least not intentionally. CZAR does get annoying, but he can't help himself. He likes to argue (read debate) in circles in an attempt to trap you into some sort of positional error. Very frustrating. I have always tried to treat members of the board with respect. I may goad and rib them into a response by some silly remark, but with no intention of disparagement. You know we New Yawkers are a rough and brash lot :O) We have too many things to debate about here in NYC. Mets vs Yankees. Rangers vs Devils and Islanders. Jets - Giants. Knicks - Nets. Bronx vs Brooklyn. On and on :O) I'll try to tone it down, but I may lose some of my charm :O)|
|Nah Steam, you don't disparage specific individuals here.||OldEdScott|
Jun 25, 2003 7:41 AM
|You DO go over the top in disparaging 'Dumocrats' and the Clintons and panty wastes in general, but as you say, the flow of colorful adjectives is part of your charm. Don't tone down!
This is actually pretty interesting. Except for the more doctrinaire Left, to which few people I know belong, it seems both Left AND Right are forming a consensus that affirmative action is wrongheaded.
It's hard for Democrat CANDIDATES to say as much though, without alienating a core constituency. I think we'd be secretly just as happy to have the Court strike it down so we can rail against Repub racism, while privately breathing a sigh of relief that the beast is dead.
(Oh, and don't you Righties bother jumping us for hypocricy on this; you guys have your own issues you wish would just go away too.)
Jun 25, 2003 7:23 AM
|Agreed on all acounts, Jon. Incidentally, I just watched "The Middle Passage" on HBO. Whoa...that was heavy and sobering.|
|I think it is at least logically inconsistant..||kilimanjaro|
Jun 25, 2003 10:42 AM
|to place so much emphasis on special treatment received via affirmitive action and not other forms of favarotism.
Michael Kingsley wrote an excellent article (in my opinion) on the subject. Very few seems to mind the favoratism that W received in his Yale and Harvard MBA admissions. W, unlike his father, would never have gotten in either school on merits alone. To be sure conservatives have no monopoly on this; Gore, Kennedys and many other prominant Liberals also received similar prefenrential treatment.
Let's go back and applying the same logic, can we discriminate based on economic means. Is it any more fair to give a few extra admission points to a poor kid, or a child of an alumnus.
To peraphrease Kingsley, If you don't know which preferential treatment gives you more advantage, the extra 20 points for being a racial minority, or having Bush senior as your father, then even the 20 extra points won't help you.
One last point, giving 20 extra points to a underepresented minority (whihc include native americans, among others) does not constitute a quota. The two are simply not equivilant.
|Ah but GW went to a private university where ...||Live Steam|
Jun 25, 2003 12:11 PM
|I am sure dear old dad footed the bill. GW2 is also considered a legacy which also carries weight in the eyes of the institution. As you stated this practice sees no political favorites. As for the economic issue, I think this is a far better criteria from which to implement such a system. It then becomes a colorblind system which can then be implemented among all worthy candidates who meet the economic as well as scholastic requirements. Besides Kingsley's assumption is just that. He has no way of knowing whether or not the slot GW took would have bumped anyone at all. That is just the liberal media picking on what they perceive as W's lack of intelligence. The jokes on them though, he is President of the United States. Pretty good trick for a dummy :O)
The 20 points for being the correct color does translate to a quota when the system can predict with near certainty how many applicants will fall into the correct category based on demographics.
|I don't think you understood me.||kilimanjaro|
Jun 25, 2003 2:09 PM
|The whole point is that legacies receive preferential treatments not afforded everyone. But wha the hell, I will conceed that private institutions can use different standards if you support Harvard and Yale continue employing affirmitive action for admission. If you actually beleive that someone with a C average (albeit from Yale) can get into the Harvard MBA program without displacing a more "worthy" candidate and without favarotism, then you should certainly believe that Hillary Clinton received no special help with those investments back in Little Rock. You're outraged that an A- student might displace an A student, but not that a C student might displace an A student. That sir, is logically inconsistent.
Extra points can equal quota only if the number of extra points are determined after checking all applicant qualifications on a yearly basis. If the points are preset, then the outcome is not pre-determined since the applicant pool is should differ (my assumption) from year to year.
By the way one can argue that W. winning the election is proof that an idiot can be president. (I am witholding my judgements) Yes indeed, the joke is on us.
Since you follow the case a lot closer than I do, can you help me out by providing the number of minority applicant/admitted vs general applicant/admitted so we actually have numbers to back it up.
I will be a lot more receptive of your argument if you state (as George Will) that affirmitive action is very crude at best and therefore wholly ineffective. You can also argue that the races (or ethnic groups) are mixing more with each generation; we are in fact moving towards a color blind society and therefore traditional classification do not apply. It is not the reality that I see but at least I can appreciate that my view is but a small window of the whole.