Diversity's Stigma - U of Michigan ruling due shortly

hhmmmmm, maybe because they are kicking everybody's ass academically? (sorry for the stereotype, but there is some truth in this crass message).

 

What subtomic said is still essentially true, though...you can't get awarded 40 points for being black and poor. The potential for the 40 max has to come from other areas, so, for example, a poor black scholarship athlete gets 40 points and a poor white scholarship athlete gets 40 points.

 

Why? It would only start an inexorable march toward a 'case closed.' No thanks, I'm not playing that game today.

 

After thinking about this case a while back I find it really doesn't matter very much at all no matter how it's decided. There are ways to meet racial diversity without simply giving people points based on their race. (single parent families, the poor, poor/bad school districts, etc.) There'll just be more beauracracy and increased costs to the schools to get it done.

I do find TJ's obsession with this pretty remarkable. Like the vast majority of anti-affirmative action people he's more concerned with the remedies for the problem than with the real problem which is an educational system that fails the poor and minorities in a major way.

 

slavery . . .jim crowe laws. . . .ring a bell?

No other minority group has been as discriminated
like the Native american and the African American

While others have been discrimated against
it was not to the point of it BEING THE LAW OF THE LAND

Af Action IMO has more to do with making up for past
and institution inequities

Present problems - Resources

Should education be just for the rich?
Their kids have the best schools because they have the
most money. .. is that fair . . . .not to mention they can
purchase the SAT software etc. . .

Loosely translated MONEY makes them a better student
even beyond their innate ability.
Is this fair? They are getting point for simple being rich already
add legacy points, etc, . . . they getting over

I'm not saying I'm not rich because my grandfather was held back
but it is a part of it. Black business were destroy for no other reason
that racism. . . . BArriers on loans, access to various groups etc

Racism is more than a white guy calling me a N****
It is an institution. It is like a computer bug in the system
we been doing a bunch of work arounds [Af Action] because
we just not tackling the d*mn problem.

The Good ole boys network - It is not white hiring white
This is like the Country Clubs (Golf clubs] only allowing whites
or men etc.
How much 'unofficial' business goes on there?
Is that fair?

This maybe a little off base but . .. . Folx think Racism ended in 1964
Even if it did .. the built in bugs in the systems are still there
they are filtering out slowly
[I MET A SECOND GENERATION BLACK AGGIE . . . in like '92
her dad was among the 1st to get into A&M after they integrated]

but I'm impatient . .. it's been 400 years!!!


Rocket River

 

So IF you coming from LA and I'm coming from Houston
We should be held to the same standard on arrival time in Miami?

Rocket River
obscure i know

 

Don't even get into this argument, it seems like simple logic what you have stated, but the other side will only revert to yeah, "but the field has been level for the past 35 years". Its no point, if they don't accept this argument, they just don't. I can already tell you the responses

"yeah but the Irish were discriminated against" or
"yeah but the Japanese were discriminated against during WWII"

as if this somehow compares to not only a legal system supported by the government, and just a mindset of a whole society, to hold a group of people back. Affirmative Action is the only system that makes up for 350 years of injustice. No one has a problem with Native American Reservations, why do they have such an issue with Affirmative Action, I will never understand. But its pointless to argue about it.

 

I would make three points in response. First, why do Latinos benefit from affirmative action? A large number are recent immigrants to the country, and some are from countries like Spain. And why should recent immigrants from Africa get preferential treatment.

Second, the amount of racism in the system is debatable. I don't think it's as bad as Rocket River seems to think it is.

Finally, many people oppose it on the grounds that it actually hurts minorities. Lowering standards so they don't have to work as hard and then having them live with the stigma of wondering if their success was due to preferential treatment is not the way to help. Minorities can succeed without these types of programs.

 

I don't buy the lowering standards thing
not much anyway . . .
What is the difference between a 3.5 student and a 4.0 student
alot of times . . . it is the school they in
The classes they take.

BTW - White women benefit most from Affirmative action.
So One would think White men would love the idea of their
wive bring home more bacon

Rocket River

 

I think it's pretty obvious. Indian Reservations don't allow companies or colleges to pass people up based on race rather than qualifications.

Also, why should me or my kids have to pay for our ancestor's mistakes? I'm being punished for something that happened before I was born.

 

The whole black community is being punished for something that happened before we were born.

Why shouldn't they be made up for at all? Someone has to pay the piper.

 

See Max?

 

i understand..i could do without his approach, too. and he could probably do without mine. but ultimately he's right...no one has answered the core question of how this is justifiable under the equal protection clause.

 

alright Max I will bite,

The XIV admendment says nothing about race. How about that for simplicity.


Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



The only right protected against race discrimination specifically is the right to vote. Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

ok...but case law interpreting other legislation in light of the 14th amendment says otherwise...and unless you want to reverse an assload of civil rights litigation (like brown v. bd of education), i don't think you want to go down that road.

any laws based on race, religion or gender are treated with strict scrutiny by the court....meaning, they will not likely be upheld. this is why affirmative action, when really tested before the constitution, comes short, in my opinion. now we can disregard the constitution, but i don't think we want to do that.

 

But that's assuming that you argue from the standpoint that it discriminates against white males. That's the key interprertation, how can white males be discriminated against when they are the dominated figure in American politics, business, and education. Affirmative Action has nothing to do with holding someone back, it has to do with making up for past mistakes. The goal of separate but equal was to keep blacks from certain schools. The goal of Affirmative Action isn't to keep whites from certain schools.

 

because the LEGISLATION...the state action itself...discriminates based on color. a LAW cannot deny equal protection. if you have white people...any white person...not getting into a college simply because he/she is white...that's not equal protection under the law.

i don't think anyone can say the law/policy itself doesn't discriminate...that's what the court has to determine...not whether or not society discriminates...but whether this piece of legislation favors one race over another. that's why it went down here with hopwood...that's why i think it will go down here in this case.

 

Not surprisingly he's taken one part of a large and complex issue and is trying to inanely base his entire argument on it. How does segregation and property tax funded school systems violate the spirit of Equal Protection? We have an entire system gerrymandered and set up to subvert equal protection. Similar to the legacy argument. Legacies aren't in themselves unconstitutional but when racial discrimination and illegal laws were used to prevent education and equal rights in society for minorities you're in effect allowing an unconstitutional benefit by allowing legacies. Our whole educational system is set up to give preference to one group over another. It's wrong and unless you want to change the structure of education in this country then there will continue to be attempts to level the playing field for the poor and minorities. If not Affirmative Action then something else that will "technically" be legal ie legacies but that will obviously favor minorities over whites and poor over wealthy.