prop 209 unconstitutional?

[xenophon41]

The Ryan:

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.

Bullshit. It is absolutely and exclusively relevant to your charge that I (and the ACLU by implication) can’t tell the difference between equal consideration under the law and “special treatment.” Your obstinate attempts to misinterpret what I said can only be explained by the following possibilities:[ul][li]You can’t argue against the fact that to deny remedial efforts based on race and gender, while accepting remedial efforts based on other factors of “class” violates the equal protection clause, and therefore you are trying to sidetrack the discussion.[]You still don’t understand the difference between A = B and If B then first A; not A, therefore not B.[]You understand the logic, but you’re too lazy to look back over the post in question to find where I made the distinction.[/ul]Any of these explanations is enought to make me choose to ignore you.[/li]

Are you really the most objective judge of this matter?

Probably not. Others may form a different opinion. As I don’t intend to address you any further, it’s moot.

Feel free to tear me up after this post; I won’t respond.

[Gadarene]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
Feel free to tear me up after this post; I won’t respond.

With the qualification, of course, The Ryan, that if you tear xenophon up with bad logic and poorly thought-out arguments, some of us will respond.

So take care, yeah?

[erislover]

I just typed up a HUGE response…to a different thread. sigh need to stay more focused.

anyway gadarene, being a super-liberal I would say that every private institution may discriminate on any basis they want. I don’t think they should discriminate on matters of birth because matters of birth do not imply anything about character, but that doesn’t mean I think anyone should force them to not do such a thing either.
The GI bill can carry over to children? That’s just plain stupid. And here we (not necessarily anyone here but I was in the thread not two weeks ago) are getting angry about inheritance being an unfair advantage! HAHAHA

Matter of geography are a little more tricky, admittedly. That is, one can form a pretty decent stereotype based on certain things in a geographical sense but not all. Hmmm. Still, I feel it depends on whether its a public institution or a private one. That’s just IMO BTW, I’m not trying to be Joe Lawyer.

Legacy admissions? HA, if someone wants to think that Jr is gonna be just like Pops then be my guest, apparently the whole “generation gap” thing flew right by them. Their loss.

Though I will admit, my public vs private seperation turns a few heads in every topic. I think it was guinastasia who harped on me about “public” restaraunts. Maybe it was someone else, I don’t remember. I just know that the opinion of free market capitalism is not very well liked here.

Oh, and can anyone tell me what the hell YMMV means?

[Gadarene]

Oh, and can anyone tell me what the hell YMMV means?

Your Mileage May Vary. Can you tell me what the hell HAHAHA means?

Oh, and legacy kids aren’t admitted because the school thinks they’ll “be just like Pops.” Why would they be admitted on that basis? They’re admitted, at least in large part, to ensure donations from the legacy’s wealthy family.

(By the way, I’m not sure your public/private distinction is relevant on this thread; Proposition 209 dealt exclusively with state universities.)

[Necros]

I’m not sure what xenophon41 et al are arguing here. Is the point that since other forms of discrimination remain that Prop 209 is bad?

I’m sorry, but some forms of discrimination will always remain. We will most likely never prohibit discrimination based on intelligence. We will never eliminate economic discrimination. And saying that racial discrimination, in the form of affirmative action, is OK because these things will always be around is ridiculous.

Please tell me I’m misunderstanding your points.

[Gadarene]

One more time, Necros. In part the argument is that because there are preferences being extended to certain classes of people (alumni legacies in university admissions, for example), it is a violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause to pass a bill which specifically denies preferences extended to another class of people in the same situation (minorities in university admissions, for example).

Thus it’s not a question of discrimination, but of certain preferences remaining in place while others are disallowed. And I wish people would stop bringing up intelligence and grades, cos they’re completely irrelevant. If two people who were equally intelligent applied to Berkeley, and one was a legacy and the other wasn’t, the legacy would have a stronger chance of being admitted.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

Legacy admissions? HA, if someone wants to think that Jr is gonna be just like Pops then be my guest, apparently the whole “generation gap” thing flew right by them. Their loss.

This is also a great way of perpetuating favoritism over historically-underrepresented people! That is when of the things that gets to the heart of this equal-protection issue. A law that allows preference on the basis of “my dad went there” but not on the basis of race will probably have the effect of preference on the basis of race.

I just know that the opinion of free market capitalism is not very well liked here.

It’s not the opinion of free market capitalism we dislike as much as the religion of free market capitalism. As in, “Why?” “Because the market says so. End of story.” The market as the ultimate arbiter of morality is not my cup-of-tea.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *

Here’s an article by a conservative explaining the concept, and why it is a valid base for continued affirmative action programs.

Nice article! I will have to keep a bookmark to that one.

[xenophon41]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**Nice article! I will have to keep a bookmark to that one. **

Yeah, I bookmarked that one, too. And I’d have never found it if aynrandlover hadn’t asked so nicely!

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
I’m not talking about grades.

Well then I guess I can’t mention them :rolleyes:.

For the nth time: how do you feel about irrelevant criteria like legacy, veteran status, or geographical diversity?

My feelings on these alledgedly irrelevant classes are irrelevant. What matters is not whether I personally support them, but whether it is possible to support them and not support race based preferences without being inconsistent. I really don’t get the point of bringing up this line of reasoning, except to argue that two wrongs somehow makes a right.

xenophon41:

Bullshit. It is absolutely and exclusively relevant to your charge that I (and the ACLU by implication) can’t tell the difference between equal consideration under the law and “special treatment.”

You’re being absurd. Just because I, for the sake of simplicity, do not include every single qualifier that you include, you accuse me of misrepresenting your position. If it is really such a problem for you, I will amend my statement to “According to you, in this case special treatment is the same as protection.”

You can’t argue against the fact that to deny remedial efforts based on race and gender, while accepting remedial efforts based on other factors of “class” violates the equal protection clause, and therefore you are trying to sidetrack the discussion.

Well, the fact that I have argued against it eliminates that possibility. For something to violate the equal protection clause, someone must be treated unequally. Would it really be so much trouble to tell me who the hell this is that is treated unequally?

You still don’t understand the difference between A = B and If B then first A; not A, therefore not B.

Seeing as how you are the one that said they are the same (at least in this case), I don’t see why you are accusing me of not understanding this difference.

You understand the logic, but you’re too lazy to look back over the post in question to find where I made the distinction.

Yes, if someone doesn’t understand your posts, it must be because they are lazy, and not because you have failed to clearly state your position :rolleyes:. Since I am too “lazy” to look through every single one of your posts and try to figure out when you made the distinction, is it really too much to ask that you quote the relevant passage, with an explanation of what you meant?

Normal people, when it becomes clear that another person has not understood them, try to determine what the point of confusion is, and try to clarify it. You, on the other hand, immediately accused me of dishonesty, and continued gratuitiously slinging insults at me, insisting that there was in fact no point of confusion, and that I was simply being difficult.

jshore:

A law that allows preference on the basis of “my dad went there” but not on the basis of race will probably have the effect of preference on the basis of race.

But wait. Isn’t preference on the basis of race what we want? Oh, that’s right, we want preference for the “good” race.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *

But wait. Isn’t preference on the basis of race what we want? Oh, that’s right, we want preference for the “good” race.

As others have been trying to explain to you, the argument for the violation of equal protection is that they are allowing some types of preferences and not others. My contribution was to point out that some of these preferences they are allowing even become effectively preferences on the basis of race. So, not only have they violated equal protection by allowing some preferences and not others. But, they are effectively allowing a preference that has racial effects that enforce the discrimination against those historically underrepresented while disallowing any more overt racial preferences that might seek to remedy the discrimination against those historically underrepresented.

And, by the way, I don’t know which race is “good” or “bad”, although I happen to be a member of the one that is not historically underrepresented.

[Sterra]

I think xenophon41 figured he was wrong and wanted to sling insults then bow out very ungracefully to avoid arguing any more. Of course thats what I always think when someone starts insulting.

[jshore]

By the way, I was just looking up stuff on the web about Prop 209, and it sounds like the meaning is so vague that people don’t even know how to interpret it. Under one interpretation, it is anti-affirmative action, while under another interpretation it is pretty much in line with what the law already was and all affirmative action programs that passed legal muster before are likely still to do so.

Here is one such analysis, coming out toward the second camp, by the Calfornia Student Association of Community Colleges: http://www.calsacc.org/reports/prop209.html I don’t know how up-to-date this analysis is with current interpretation of the proposition by the courts.

[jshore]

Here is another link, from a memo by the San Francisco Bar Association that is posted on the ACLU web site: http://www.aclunc.org/affirmative-action/209-legal.html

I think the problem one gets into in discussing this is that the wording of the proposition is quite vague and the law in this area is quite well-developed…And how this Proposition then fits in to that already well-developed case law is quite confusing and people are still fumbling around in the dark on this. In some sense, it seems (although I am saying this on the basis of a rather cursory look-see) that the ACLU may have lost the battle but won the war in that, while not getting the prop declared unconstitutional, they pushed State to defend the prop under an interpretation which then interprets it in a way that doesn’t really change the law very much if at all from what it was before it took effect.

[xenophon41]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
I think xenophon41 figured he was wrong and wanted to sling insults then bow out very ungracefully to avoid arguing any more. Of course thats what I always think when someone starts insulting.

I usually ignore Asmodean’s posts, but I thought I should answer this one just to state that I have not withdrawn from this discussion. I will directly address any new arguments anyone raises in defense of Proposition 209 or in argument to the actual points I’ve raised. I will NOT infinitely repeat the very simple objections raised by the ACLU in a vain hope that obstinate jerks might finally acknowledge what is actually being said. And I will not directly respond to obfuscatory evasions.

[jb_farley]

aynrandlover

I don’t think they should discriminate on matters of birth because matters of birth do not imply anything about character

you keep bringing this up, this idea of “discrimination is okay if people could choose (religion, living area), but not if they’re born as something”.

So should we dismantle programs to help the mentally and physically handicapped? Down with Spina Bifida Sufferers?
jb