Max, it's not "may", it is. Read the briefs of the retired generals and service academies in support of AA. No const. provision mandated them to file those.
i have not read those briefs...and honestly i haven't read much of this thread..i responded to your post only, sorta in a bubble..to the extent my response is nonsensical because of that, disregard it...the thought just came to mind while i was reading your post.
The military isn't subject to market forces in that it is not designed to make a profit like every other company I can think of. Its mission is to protect, defend, and destroy. It can be in debt billions of dollars and still be fulfilling its primary goal. You all were talking about the marketplace and that was the framed question. I just commented and you jumped subjects. The military is not a typical company. Period. There were a lot of politcal things going on there that I have not the time or effort to go into right now. Why the hell do you think I give a hoot about "an anti-AA lawyer"? Do you honestly want to start arguing by saying "see, this guy said something stupid, so therefore your whole argument falls apart"
I see, anyway the gist of what they said was that it was a national security issue to have AA in the military.
Let the record futher show that nobody gives an earthly crap whether you feel personally attacked. When you start treating people with deference and respect, the same will be afforded to you.
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect; your thinking about economics is far too limited to the monetary; the military is subject to market forces, just like pretty much everything else in the world is. By "market forces" I do not mean the stock market, or T-bills, or your 401k, by market forces, I mean the forces that determine the allocation of scarce resources. Just because the military seeks to maximize its welfare in a non-monentary fashion does not mean that market forces do not apply. Entire branches of economics have emerged that have nothing to do with private, for profit firms. THat's not an argument that I'm making, that's a fact of life. The reason why I alluded to that incident about the Coast Guard was to illustrate how difficult the question is to answer, a point that is being illustrated again in this very thread.
I am sorry, but I am not wrong. I said that it was not a typical company. It has to deal with the market the same as everything else, but its method of approach is far different than a for-profit company. The same as NASA, or Amtrak. If you're going to say that the military would behave the same if it was not a part of the government, I don't think we could ever agree to a common ground on this subject.
For the third time, it doesn't matter that they are for-profit or not, when talking about the labor market, which we are, the laws of supply and demand apply: market forces Definition: [n] the interaction of supply and demand that shapes a market economy But anyway, let's operate under the fallacy that you created where supply and demand shouldn't or don't apply to non-profit institutions, a fallacy that is not acceptable to a high-school level economics class; A college or a university is a non-profit institution; therefore, market forces do not apply. Accordingly, AA can be used as it as it is in the military Hey, we do agree on something! you think AA should be used in education, well so do I! all right! This isn't a matter of opinion; the fact that the military is subject to market forces and conditions in various aspects is as indisputable as the fact that the Sun comes up or the sun comes down. Even a pretend economist like Trader_texx realizes this.
I have not argued that market forces do not affect the military. I clarified this on the 3:55 post and my previous post when I said that I know that market forces affect the military, it's just not the same manner as a for-profit company. That was my point. Everyone else seems to understand this (MadMax) but you. And I never said I support AA in its current form. I said that AA should not be race-based, but economically based. It would help those who need the help, not just those who happen to have the right skin color.
.....I'll take any number of basic economy 101 textbooks and the billions of man hours behind them and hundreds of years of scholarship over you and madmax any day....I will leave you to your artificial distinction in peace.
Fine, then forget the crap about market forces and economics... go back to my original response and tell me why military men endorse a system where allegedly "less qualified" individuals get advanced/promoted/given opportunities when in the military, far more than just money, but their VERY LIVES and lives of millions of men and women are at stake? As I said before, AA opponents had months and months and months to consider this argument before they went before the supreme court...they couldn't come up with an answer.... can you?
What was the name of the case that went before the Supreme Court about this? The way I understood it, the military was ordered in the 50's to remove the obstacles that barred minorities from rank and opportunities. I did not think that less qualified individuals were promoted, but just allowed the qualified minorities to compete with their white counterparts. I could be wrong and hope that one of the military men on the board can give a straight answer to how minorities are treated w/ respect to AA. If patently less qualified people were promoted just because of their race, how could you support that when there are lives at stake? I would think the military would want a purely merit-based system, even if political climates don't always make that feasible.
Nope, they don't. The service academies were among AA's biggest supporters, as were many retired generals and admirals, including Wesley Clark, Norman Schwartzkopf, William Crowe. The military amicus brief was one of the most persuasive arguments in front of the supreme court and was cited expressly in their decision: Service Academies: Affirmative Action At Work Byline Al Hunt © Wall Street Journal January 23, 2003 As President Bush was thrashing out the politics of his posture against affirmative action at the University of Michigan, he conferred with conservative activist and Solicitor General Ted Olson; political adviser Karl Rove; and National Security Administration head Condoleeza Rice. He also should have talked to Lt. Gen. John Dallager, Lt. Gen. William Lennox and Vice Admiral Richard Naughton; they are the superintendents of the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy, three federal institutions where affirmative action has been forcefully practiced and demonstrably effective. The academies, along with the smaller Coast Guard Academy, used to be conscientious objectors in the quest for diversity; 30 years ago West Point had fewer than 1% African Americans and Hispanics and the others were about the same. Today one in seven cadets or midshipmen are blacks or Latinos (minority percentages at West Point were down slightly for a few years, but African-Americans and Hispanics now comprise about 16% of the student body). As these academies have become more diverse, far from lowering standards, their academic standings have grown. Affirmative action began at the service academies in the 70s due to political pressure and a critical need to provide more diverse leaders in America's military. "You can't have increasingly black and Hispanic enlisted ranks," notes retired Gen. Dan Christman, former superintendent of West Point, "and not have black officers, lieutenants, captains and generals." In his Vietnam-era class of 1965, Gen. Christman recalls, there were only four African-Americans out of a class of 950. Aggressive outreach and inclusion are much in evidence. At the Air Force Academy, 10 recent graduates every year are assigned to Colorado Springs to recruit and attract minority students. Army and Navy have similar efforts. The academies also use their prep schools to prepare underqualified but promising applicants. They target minorities; blacks and Hispanics represent almost half the students at the U.S. Naval prep school in Newport, R.I., and about a third at the U.S. Military Academy prep school at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Using conservatives' favorite yardstick of test scores, minorities indisputably have an edge. Linda Chavez, the GOP activist who has turned opposition to affirmative action into a cottage industry, assailed the service academies a few years ago for utilizing a "widespread system of (racial) preferences." Indeed, the latest data at West Point suggests that while the average African-American cadet scores 1191 on the standard achievement tests and Hispanics average 1225, that is 5% to 10% lower than whites, or an average of more than 60 to almost 100 points. There are similar disparities at Annapolis. But Ms. Chavez and other affirmative action critics are wrong that this lowers standards or the standings of the institutions. Outside experts say the service academies are far better academic institutions than they were 30 years ago, before affirmative action. The Princeton Review gives all three institutions its highest four-star ratings for academic and selectivity, while the Barrons Review ranks Army, Navy and the Air Force as among the most competitive schools in the country. Officers there say affirmative action has made them better. "A different prospective . . . diversity . . . enhances our educational process," says David Vetter, dean of admissions at Annapolis. Michael Jones, his West Point counterpart, observes that "academic testing is not a science," and notes the large number of cadets, including many minorities, who display leadership skills superior to some with much higher test scores. These changes have served the country's military well, providing a corps of African American and Hispanic officers that, while still well below the percentage of enlisted men, form a critical mass. "We now are producing graduates that look and feel more like our country and our Navy and Marine Corps," says Col. Vetter, a 30-year Marine veteran. This is more than a look good or feel good position, says Gen. Christman. "We are training our cadets for an army that operates around the globe in a very diverse environment with a huge mixture of cultural, religious and ethnic balances. It is very important that our young officers appreciate the diversity in our own society and the environment that he or she will operate in overseas." Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger is not exaggerating when he warns if the courts end affirmative action, it would be tantamount to "a constitutional straightjacket that is very harmful to the military." Moreover, while the stakes may not be as large or courage as essential, Gen. Christman's point about diversity applies to college graduates going into business, law, journalism, or most other endeavors. Preferences are a reality in America. There are veterans' preferences, preferences for athletes and favoritism for sons and daughters of powerful people; the children of readers of this newspaper have opportunities not enjoyed by most offspring of Oakland welfare mothers. To be sure, affirmative action, when it's rigid and turns into quotas, creates excesses and backlashes. There is a simple test: Has affirmative action made an institution better or worse? In most instances, whether it's the military (the most integrated institution in America), fire or police departments, newspaper offices and most certainly colleges and universities -- as demonstrated by the service academies and by the University of Michigan -- it clearly has been positive. Unfortunately, that seemed irrelevant to George W. Bush, as does the affirmative action, as a legacy, that got him into Yale 38 years ago, and carried him through much of his life.
How odd...especially considering that unless you post a party affiliation on your registration certificate (most people don't), anybody looking will have no clue about the person's political leaning/ideology.
