It doesn’t seem like it would be a very difficult achievement. Not everyone is equally self aware.
No, no I don’t.
Enough!
Damuri Ajashi and lance strongarm, you two have made this a personal feud with the actual topic of the thread apparently long forgotten.
Both of you knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
What this thread needs is more adaher.
Seriously though, I read something that got me thinking(hey, don’t leave!):
In a society where the oppressors of African-Americans and African-Americans themselves are declining as a percentage of the population, how relevant is affirmative action, at least as justified by 500 years of slavery and oppression? Should Latinos and Asians have anything to do with this one way or the other?
This is easy. Let’s start with Scott Walker. This was a guy who got elected Governor of Wisconson - not just once, but twice, with nothing but a high school diploma. You can’t find one minority Governor in the contiguous United States who has not had formal college coursework. Not a single one. Even Sarah Palin and the She-Devil (Gov. Jan Brewer) managed to complete 120 credits of coursework, but a white dude can mosey in there with just a high school diploma and win the Governorship, twice. LOL. It would be analogous to Rev. Al Sharpton getting elected Governor of Connecticut on a dog-eared, boilerplate platform of cutting taxes and limited government. I can do this with Rob Ford, John Boehner, Rick Snyder, Scott Brown, John Kasich, and the rest of these below average to average clowns who have made it due to their race and gender. If Scott Walker or John Boehner* were black (or a woman) they’d be washing dishes somewhere not occupying the one of the highest office in the land. I guarantee you that.
- Honesty
*This is the crybaby Speaker the House who claims we need to “cool it” legislation this year. White people are so funny: wasn’t this past year the least productive Congress since the U.S declared independence from Great Britain? Is the role of the Legislative Branch to legislate or to repeal? I would’ve sworn the Constitution says the role of the Legislative Branch is to legislate. Oh, it does.
Well, your post indicates that you think that this is about punishing the oppressors. Its really not. Its about trying to uplift the oppressed.
But, since this is a zero sum game, is it fair for non-oppressors to be displaced?
Now if we’re justifying AA on the basis of diversity, then the way things are currently done makes sense. I’m just not convinced that diversity is this compelling interest. It doesn’t have even close to the same moral urgency as remedying past discrimination.
I disagree that this is zero sum, the margin of variability on entering freshman class sizes at UC schools is far larger than the number of blacks that get in by virtue of AA.
Can we agree that the effects of historical oppression reduces black college admissions? If admissions are as zero sum as you say, then there are a bunch of non-blacks taking college spots that would have otherwise gone to blacks without the oppression so the preference we give to blacks only restore them to what the resting state would have been without the oppression regardless of whether the displaced students who go to Cornell instead of Harvard are the descendants of slaveowners and racists or not.
New Supreme Court decision:
Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on affirmative action
"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a ban on using race in admissions to Michigan’s public universities.
The court was divided on the case, which overturns a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the case is not about race admissions policies but about whether voters in a state can choose to prohibit consideration of racial preferences."
http://www.freep.com/article/20140422/NEWS06/304220075/Supreme-Court-upholds-Michigan-s-ban-on-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions
6-2 vote, so more legitimacy than a 5-4 split would have had.
I’m not sure what Sotomayer and Ginsburg were thinking here. AA policies have always been enacted as part of duly passed laws, or court settlements. I’ve never heard of SCOTUS ruling that states HAD to have affirmative action policies. Can anyone else think of an example where they did?
What part of the dissent says that the Supreme Court has ruled that states had to have affirmative action?
Why bother with democracy when we can just have liberal judges decide what laws everyone should live under?
What the fuck? What?
The dissent means they wanted to uphold the lower court which threw out the referendum result.
That would mean that Michigan would have to have AA despite a duly enacted law.
I don’t understand why this language issue keeps cropping up. No, Michigan would not have to have affirmative action. Michigan would be permitted to have affirmative action.
Michigan is already permitted to have affirmative action. The people voted to end it. The lower court said, “you can’t do that.”
If Michigan can’t end affirmative action through the democratic process, then that means they have to have affirmative action.
I see. “Have” it as in abide it to exist in any institution in the state.
I understand your problem with the dissent.
What I would like to do, and I think many underestimate the importance of, is send a message to every young Black kid that you are not a slave, your parents were not slaves, your grandparents were not slaves. And while their is an ugly history in this country concerning slavery and the treatment of Blacks, that is behind us. More important, it is behind you—WAY behind you! YOU are just as good and just as smart as any kid of any race. Your future lies in what is ahead for you, not what for you is really ancient history. So, lift your chin up, pul your shoulders back and start working for what you want in life, by doing those things other kids your age are doing who aren’t distracted by an ugly history that has no bearing on you. Ignore that past, ugly as it was. Look ahead. Plan for what you want out of life and go after it.
Er, but also, kid, have a backup plan if you want to rent an apartment. Or go on a job interview. Or interact with a police officer, ever.
I don’t understand your problem with the language. The people of Michigan voted, clearly, to end all government affirmative action in their state. Liberal groups sued, hoping that the courts would rule that the people could not be allowed to end affirmative action in Michigan. The state Supreme Court took that position, which would have meant that the state of Michigan must have affirmative action even after the voters chose to eliminate it.
Are you of the opinion that the Michigan government should be forced to have affirmative action even after the people vote to completely eliminate it?
And never mind that people will treat you differently because you are black.
Never mind that you grew up in a poor community that was impoverished by the policies of your government.