No one has said this. The title of this thread, in case you didn’t notice, is “prop 209 unconstitutional?”. It is not “races not completely equal?”, “non-discrimination laws not 100% effective?”, “race relations imperfect?” or even “prop 209 bad?”. The 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment by the government. It does not guarantee equal treatment by society.
In any part of society that engages in commerce, yes equal protection of the laws does apply.
Bush’s ability to get around the legal system had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his affluence. Were he poor and white, the result would have been the same as if he were poor and black. If he were rich and black, the result would have been the same as it was.
Creating equal opportunity by telling people they are not supposed to discriminate (and enforcing it, of course) makes more sense to me than doing it by telling people they are supposed to discriminate.
It certainly isn’t a logical conclusion that “mustn’t hurt” = “must help”.
You (and your high school government teacher) should read up on the concept of “Disparate Impact” some time.
Umm, isn’t this OP kinda moot? I mean prop 209 has been extensively hashed out in the Courts, including the CA supreme court; and they have supported it every time- in the end. San Jose got its wrist slapped rather strongly by writing some rules for “outreach” for contracts- that for all intents & purposes REQUIRED a certain amount of contracts to go to minorities. (it was not written like that- but the hoops one had to jump thru if you did not pass the “outreach test” were “so high & so small”- that every company just went along with the 'quotas". However- not according to the CA Supremes) 
We are both aware that a law which affects different people differently can be discrimination; however, the fact that a law affects different people dfifferently does not, in itself, establish discrimination.
DITWD: yes, it is largely moot. But then, can’t that be said of most debates? Five highest debates at the moment:
Should Timothy McVeigh be executed?
We aren’t going to have any effect on that decision, so it’s largely moot.
Non-Rhyming poetry - legitimate or not?
Again, our opinion doesn’t matter much. People aren’t going to stop doing it just because we don’t like it.
Why Hate Crime laws are a really really bad idea
One of the few non-moot debates.
If the Liberal or Conservatives Totally Got Their Way Which Country Would Be Better?
Obviously moot.
Roman Visitors to N. America?
Does this really matter?
Ryan- it is not that I don’t think that Prop 209 is DEBATEABLE- sure it is. But just that I think that whether or not it is “constitutional” has been settled.
An interesting question, then, is whether the opposite of prop 209 is constitutional. Ryan has had this implicitely in his responses though it has been glossed over.
When I lived in Cleveland there the company I worked for was the main contractor for doing work on public housing units. There were specifics in our contract that forced us to hire specific groups of people. There had to be other minority contractors on the job and we were required to give them a specific amount of the labor. As well we had to temporarily hire a resident of the place and give him a specific amount of hours (there were minimums, not maximums). The pay we were entitled to give was also set as a minimum.
I felt that that contract was BS coming from a public institution. Were it to come from a private institution I would have no beef whatsoever, but it amounted to the city of Cleveland demanding preferential treatment for minorities.
Hogwash, IMO.
Of course it is, and thank you for proving the ACLU’s point regarding equal protection! I mean, let’s follow your defense of Prop 209, here; if discriminatory hiring and school admission policies are BAD, shouldn’t we prohibit preferences based on age? How about those based on geography? Economic status? If not, why not? If so, why allow those and disallow preferences based on race or gender? That is the equal protection problem with Prop 209.
Well, since you asked a direct question, let me answer directly. I am not insane, either in my own judgement or apparently in the judgements of those who spend any time around me.
Let me ask a direct question of you, based on your interpretation of what I said. Your interpretation is that, since I’m asserting that the laws which will not be applied equally (“equal protection”) deal with Affirmative Action preferences (“special treatment”) I therefore think the two are indistinguishable concepts?! Can you understand that A=B is not the same as If B, then first A; Not A then Not B?
I prefer to believe that jshore’s assertion is correct; you are just posturing. But please let me know if I need to break the ideas down more simply for you.
You too? Here you go:
Here’s an article by a conservative explaining the concept, and why it is a valid base for continued affirmative action programs. I would also recommend doing a web search on the word “underrepresentation.” It took me about 40 seconds to find the above article.
xeno nice article. I was getting my head messed up because of a thread gadarene started about equal representation in government and then I saw “underrepresented” and my train of though was along all the stuff I need to do here at work and lo!-my thoughts weren’t exactly what I wanted them to be.
But, back to the case at hand.
I find affirmative action programs a decent way to deal with things provided they are somewhat flexible in requirements and that they are not a “for-all-time” law. They should have-- what do they call that?–a built in death time of, say, twenty years at which point the law would need to be repassed.
Really, I am one of those people who don’t think much about it other than the impression of “reverse discrimination” which is hard to not understand. People should not be turned away from a job based on ethnicity or hired because of it, and I still am not clear on how an affirmative action program avoids this.
The Ryan and aynrandlover: Can I assume that the both of you are in favor of a bill disallowing all admissions preference based on veteran status, geographic diversity, and alumni legacy status?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
I mean, let’s follow your defense of Prop 209, here; if discriminatory hiring and school admission policies are BAD, shouldn’t we prohibit preferences based on age? How about those based on geography? Economic status? If not, why not?[/wuote]
It is constitutional to ban those types of discrimination. I really don’t see how “constitutional” automtically translates to “should be enacted”.
What is? That some types of discrimination are allowed, and others aren’t? How is that a problem?
No, I think that since you said that they are the same, you think that they are indistinguishable. Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
bolding mine
Why? Is it really so difficult to believe that someone might (gasp) disagree with you?
Danielinthewolvesden
Yes. But the idea that equal treatement is unconstitutional seems so ridiculous to me that I am very curious as to how someone can hold that position.
Gadarene
Where would you get such an idea? Should we outlaw discimination on the basis of grades as well?
Well, because that’s hardly “equal protection,” is it?
If there are admissions preferences in place that deal with someone’s class rather than their qualifications, and yet other admissions preferences are stricken down, then the treatment isn’t equal. So your above statement is completely, utterly, totally irrelevant.
You seem to be pushing for non-preferential treatment. If that is the case, surely you think that people who are alumni legacies shouldn’t be preferred any more than people who are veterans, people who are black, or people who are women. What am I missing here?
*Originally posted by The Ryan:
“…actually, The Ryan, in this case they are the same.” Bolding mine. What don’t you understand about conditional congruency?
Nope. Disagreement I understand and expect. My difficulty lies in believing that someone who can frame any sort of argument on their own can also be so dim-witted as to misunderstand a clearly stated counterargument. I think it’s a willful sham on your part.
I’m done with you.
Gadarene, I would think it is at least clear that the Ryan and I avoid grouping women or blacks the same way we would group Christians or Harvard graduates. That is, one is birth and one is not (nevermind sex changes ;p).
That said, any group of choice can generally be biased for or against (generally, please note—there are specific groups I would feel non-discriminatory towards). I have said that birth groups (The Ryan’s “class”) should not be considered a basis for hiring or firing explicitely. To do so would be discriminating against a person based on something far beyond their control.
A prospective college applicant coming out of high school has no control over where they live (preference based on geographic diversity) or where their parents went to school (preference based on alumni legacy) or how much money their parents make (preference based on income) or whether or not their parents are veterans of the armed force (preference based on veteran status). I’m afraid I don’t understand your argument.
Of classes, no. But I see no problem with treating different classes differently. The 14th amendment applies to people, not classes.
Okay, then I amend my statement to:
I would think that it would be obvious that I was talking about people, but apparently it’s not.
What you’re missing is that being against racial discrimination is not the smae as being against discrimination. As I said, I see no problem with discriminating on the basis of a relevant criterion, such as grades. Dicrimination is not an all or nothing proposition.
xenophon41
I understand it perfectly. However since we are, umm, talking about, you know, THIS CASE, whether or not the are the same in another case is irrelevant.
If I misunderstood it, what makes you so sure it was clearly stated? Are you really the most objective judge of this matter?
Don’t understand my argument? That might be because I’m not arguing anything. 
But, here you go if you want.
I imply that one can generally discriminate based on matters of choice, and you then proceed to show me examples of things that have no choice. To better understand how I view the points you bring up.
College applicant situation:
Race–always irrelevant
Sex–always irrelevant
Religion–irrelevant to a public institution but relevant to a private on if they so choose
Parental income–yeah, its a bitch to not provide a service or sell things to people who cannot afford it. :rolleyes: Instead of going straight to college after school one can live on one’s own for two years, become independant, and fuck the parent’s income. You saying this is discrimination is like saying bank loans discriminate against poor people…OF COURSE they do, you’re supposed to pay the loan back and there is less of a guarantee that a person who doesn’t have any money is going to be able to do that.
Parental Veterans–WHAT? You can’t tell me schools do this. I never ever had to fill out any information about my parents when I went to school. Oh, right, I was independant then. Maybe you’re right, though, I don’t know.
As far as college applications go the public school should ascertain two things. Can we get paid for providing the education? Has the prospective student shown that s/he is willing and able to learn? The private school IMO can add many more qualifications onto it, but I still say race and sex are out of it.
I’m not talking about grades. For the nth time: how do you feel about irrelevant criteria like legacy, veteran status, or geographical diversity?
ARL:
Yes, children whose parents served in the armed forces are sometimes eligible to attend college via the GI Bill.
I noticed you left legacy admissions and geographical diversity of your little list there. Any particular reason why?