# Justice Dept. Sues SIU for Affirmative Action **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 11, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658 "2005-11-11T23:54:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/101 "2005-11-16T00:23:27Z")
Well, Cecil’s basement would be sort of an unusual workplace, no? ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/102 "2005-11-16T00:39:58Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > Well, Cecil’s basement would be sort of an unusual workplace, no? You have _no_ idea… ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/103 "2005-11-16T18:08:45Z")
So, **Bricker** , any chance of you ever responding to my post 38? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/104 "2005-11-16T22:42:54Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, **Bricker** , any chance of you ever responding to my post 38? Yep. Missed it. Sorry. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If that was the entire content of the OP, I might agree with you. One snide and unfair generalization in a larger rant is VERY different from a post consisting of nothing else. > > Furthermore, while I don’t want to be seen as a defender of the OP, he didn’t say “no one could possibly hold this position but a (rabid and morally bereft…)”. Rather, he basically claimed that the government, ie, the Bush administration, was taking this action in order to appeal to the (rabid and morally bereft…), which is a less outrageously offensive statement than you’re making it out to be. That’s a very forgiving view of the OP. His point is that the action itself (suing SIU) is morally questionable on its merits. It is with that point that I vigorously disagree. > [@](#): > > My _dishonesty_??? Who peed in your wheaties? Where have I _ever_ been dishonest in my SDMB interactions? It’s possible I’m wrong about this topic. It’s possible I’m wrong and a hypocrite. But what on earth possibly makes me dishonest? Please point out my dishonesty or withdraw the accusation. Your dishonesty arose when you characterized the OP’s tirade as “an issue that deserves serious debate” and my tirade as an “irrelevant and facile dismissal.” You applied markedly different standards to my side of the question, and that is classic intellectual dishonesty. > [@](#): > > And furthermore, that’s not what you said. You didn’t say “These programs are illegal, therefore it’s appropriate for the government to put a stop to them”. Rather, you made a meaningless comparison and attempted to use it to “zing” the liberals. My comparsion was not meaningless. In fact, the OP’s attack on the government’s action fails to acknowledge the illegal nature of the programs under attack, inveighs aginst the motives of anyone failing to support this odious brand of racial discrimination, and completely ignores the gross inequities that the law properly forbids. > [@](#): > > Yes, I react differently to apparently identical things when the words “black” and “white” are swapped. A “black pride week” and a “white pride week” are NOT equal. And furthermore, you’re a smart guy and you know it, so don’t plead ignorance and mock surprise. We can debate that proposition, if you wish. But here we have a program that is, by its operators’ own admission, absolutely closed to any white male. That’s a far cry from “pride week”. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/105 "2005-11-17T01:34:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your dishonesty arose when you characterized the OP’s tirade as “an issue that deserves serious debate” and my tirade as an “irrelevant and facile dismissal.” You applied markedly different standards to my side of the question, and that is classic intellectual dishonesty. So I’m not a liar, I’m a non-objective fool? Well, OK, I’d still like to think you’re wrong, but that’s an accusation I resent less, as it’s almost certainly true at least from time to time (for me as for all of us). > [@](#): > > My comparsion was not meaningless. What, exactly, was the point of “If a similar award were closed to balck or Hispanic males, there would be no question of its illegality and no dearth of outrage from the left.”? I mean, that’s obviously true, and does not reflect particularly badly on the left, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that it’s only point is to try to cheaply win the argument via saying “well, YOUR position is obviously hypocritical, I win, let’s move on”. One might as well enter a reasoned discussion about the precise limitations of free speech by saying “If a similar person were arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, there would be no question of its illegality and no dearth of outrage from the left/right/freemasons”. > [@](#): > > In fact, the OP’s attack on the government’s action fails to acknowledge the illegal nature of the programs under attack, Two comments: (a) If someone came in and said “Virginia has suddenly started enforcing their decades-old law against consensual adult sodomy… what an awful thing they are doing to court the religious right”, the poster presumably believes two things: (i) consensual adult sodomy should be legal (ii) even if it isn’t, this law hasn’t been enforced for some time, and suddenly was Thus, saying “ahh, but it’s ILLEGAL” is not a particularly meaningful response to that sort of claim. (b) Whether it’s illegal or not is also not particularly obvious to the generic reasonably informed American citizen. Taking myself as an example, I am (as a doper, if nothing else) FAR better informed about rights and laws and so forth than the average American, and if you’d said to me “what defines whether a recruitment program with racially based preferences and/or quotas is legal or not?” I would have had no idea. So while a lawyer like you might be outraged that anyone would defend something that is SO OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL, well, it’s not obvious. > [@](#): > > inveighs aginst the motives of anyone failing to support this odious brand of racial discrimination, I’ve reread the OP again, and I still don’t see that. Saying “Bush is doing this to appeal to the most evil people on the right” doesn’t imply that only the most people on the right would oppose this program in the first place. > [@](#): > > and completely ignores the gross inequities that the law properly forbids. Yes, the OP isn’t saying “I favor affirmative action, here are my reasons”. He’s not trying to debate the pros or cons of the subject. But it’s also FAR from a driveby “here’s something that happened… republicans are assholes” type post. Read the first paragraph, and part where he quotes Obama. Now, his claim is hardly couched in the most diplomatic of language, but there actually is a POINT he is trying to make. It is not an Reeder- or Brutus-esque flamefest. > [@](#): > > We can debate that proposition, if you wish. But here we have a program that is, by its operators’ own admission, absolutely closed to any white male. That’s a far cry from “pride week”. Agreed. But (a) my point is that you can’t just automatically win the argument by saying “ahh, but substitute ‘white’ for ‘black’ and you liberals would flip flop. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites I say!”, not that this program is necessarily good. (b) There’s a difference between a program which, right in its very rules, has “no white men allowed”, and a program which is set up to favor various disadvantaged groups in such a way that it’s vanishingly unlikely it would ever end up selecting a white male. Anyhow, a general comment about the issue: I think racial preferences should only be allowed with very good reason, and then only in strictly constrained contexts. Is trying to increase a racial community’s presence within a field in order to provide role models for future children and students, thus hopefully setting up a self-perpetuating cycle in which the current gross numerical inequities (whatever their causes) are overcome, a very good reason? It might be. Is one small scholarship at one university a strictly constrained context? It might be. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/106 "2005-11-18T15:12:32Z")
Hi, I’m sorry I haven’t been participating. I can’t really add much at this time except to say **Monstro** ’s post got me thinking harder about “excluded middles”, and I should acknowledge **tomndeb** made some good points. I still think the J.D.'s actions here are at least in some part politically-motivated, that racism has played some significant role in the problems I discussed, and that there ought to be room in the law for some corrective measures that get the blanket label, “Affirmative Action”. Beyond that, I can’t contribute much right now. I was away at a conference in Texas, and when I got back…well, I got some bad news. Maybe I’ll discuss it later. Anyhow, I didn’t intend my post to be a “driveby” or “pubs r teh suxors” kind of affair. Again, apologies. Wish I could say more. Loop. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658/107 "2005-11-22T06:39:59Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, **Bricker** , any chance of you ever responding to my post 38? And, while we’re at it, post 185? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-dept-sues-siu-for-affirmative-action/330658.md?page=5)