While I tend to agree with this, there are a sea of test taking teachers, and their student and parent clients, who would vehemently disagree.
Why not? If diversity, in and of itself, is a good thing, seeing that in all aspects of society would be a good thing, no?
And that’s why you are incapable of addressing the problem. The problem that needs to be addressed is that black students are less capable of succeeding academically, even when they have the advantages that come with a wealthy upbringing and the other student does not. The problem is not merely their poor college opportunities - that’s only a symptom.
Or to use a different example where you cannot hide behind insinuations that my comments are distasteful, I will point to my own group: males. It is well known that male students are falling behind female students academically. The response to this problem should be to figure out why male students are falling behind and, if possible, how to improve how we teach our children so that both male and female students can achieve their full potential. The solution is not to declare the subject taboo and thereby pretend we know that males are inherently incapable of matching females academically, and so need colleges to use Affirmative Action to discriminate in their favour.
Nobody “works hard” to do better in class? Doing better in Mathematics classes doesn’t prepare you to do better in the mathematics section of the SAT? Doing better in English classes doesn’t prepare you to do better in the essay and critical reading sections of the SAT?
Nonetheless my two sentences are both true. You claim that the Supreme Court “gutted the voting rights act”, which never happened. If it happened, you should provide a cite for it. Likewise you claimed that conservatives “created racist voter ID laws”, which never happened. If it happened, you should provide a cite for it.
Consistent.
But in my view unworkable.
We’re getting there. PGA v. Martin.
I don’t think that diversity, for its own sake, and so we can pat ourselves on the back when we look at a representative college class and see a bunch of brown and white faces is a societal good.
Implicit in the societal good we see in diversity is that people of all races and backgrounds are given an equal opportunity to be there. Ultimately the goal of the PGA or an elite college is to select the best golfers and students, respectively, without regard to race.
There is no way I can respect a scenario that was upheld in Grutter where a student of any race was leapfrogged by another student of a different race, because of the race of the second student. Whether it is holistic, a point system, or a straight quota, it is discrimination based upon race; something that this country has tried to get past since it’s founding. Why keep doing it?
This is total non-sequitur. The topic that the Honorable Justice Sotomayor was addressing was not whether the majority “often” does this or that. The topic was the specific instance when the voters of Michigan chose to abolish affirmative action in their state government. The voters of Michigan, in this specific instance, said that members of all races must be treated fairly and equally. Justice Sotomayor lied, claiming that in this specific instance, the voters of Michigan “uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities”.
While you want to keep on talking only about what voters “often” and “generally” do, that’s completely irrelevant to the statement Justice Sotomayor made. Thus far you’ve said nothing relevant to defending the statement that Justice Sotomayor made.
It is curious it hasn’t been mentioned yet: the voter ban in Michigan on Affirmative Action was put on the ballot by Affirmative Action opponents who engaged in systemic voter fraud. It should never have been on the ballot to begin with. I am disappointed (and surprised) that it wasn’t highlighted in Sotomayor’s dissent.
In what I’m sure will be a rejection of actual evidence by you, either through ad hominem attacks, counter links from right-wing sources, or utter misunderstanding of the debate at hand, here is a guide of what exactly was the decision by the SCOTUS and its impact.
There are 2 sections to the VRA that is relevant in this case, sections 4 and 5. Section 4 establishes a formula to determine which areas are most racist and section 5 requires those areas to have changes to their voting procedures be signed off by the Feds. These sections are the center of the VRA, establishing criteria to determine what it covers and how that is enforced. The SCOTUS gutted the act by basically telling Congress it can’t enforce section 4 until they come up with a new formula while letting those states off the hook until that happens. Therefore, section 4 might as well not exist. When there is no determination on who’s too racist to make their own rules, of course they will eagerly take that chance to go into full KKK mode.
As for when laws were rushed into effect? How about 2 hoursafter the decision was made? Specifically note that this was the same law blocked the previous year
And here’s a description of how that map was made:
“In the case of the new electoral map, a panel of federal judges found that “substantial surgery” was done to predominantly black districts, cutting off representatives’ offices from their strongest fundraising bases. Meanwhile, white Congress members’ districts were either preserved or “redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent’s grandchildren.” The new map was also drawn in secret by white Republican representatives, without notifying their black and Latino peers. After the court blocked the map, the legislature approved small changes to appease Democratic lawmakers last week. Now that they are free to use the old maps, however, Gov. Rick Perry (R) could simply veto the new plan and use the more discriminatory maps.”
Here’s another one in North Carolina. And one in Mississippi. And Alabama. And Virginia. As this article helpfully summarizes, 5 of the 9 states covered under the VRA section 4 were already moving ahead with racist laws a few days after the SCOTUS decision was made, and around the country, conservatives are pushing dozens more laws in states to restrict voting.
So even if you don’t completely ignore reality, a very real possibility, and acknowledge that these laws are actually being pushed forward, you will probably have issues with me calling them racist. Well, that’s not me calling them that, that’s the VRA, which of those 5 out of 9 states that have moved laws forward, all had similar laws rejected in the past for VRA reasons (ie. they are racist).
Not that you care, I’m 100% certain none of that will convince you. I really think that people like you should just say that you don’t care if something’s racist as long as you get what you want. I’m not talking to you, ITR, the poster, I’m talking to the person behind the user name. We know what you believe and we know what kind of person you are. Why not just come out and admit it? Are you afraid of being shunned by this board full of liberals and people who disagree with you? What do you lose by leaving? Intellectual banter which you don’t participate in? Name calling that you can do on some other message board with people who agree with you? Why don’t you just join FreeRepublic and post there? I’m sure you’ll get a lot of support with equally foolish people who think the VRA is outdated and doesn’t protect against racism. Why do you hang out with people here that know better than you and can see through your bullshit arguments? I honestly what to know? Are you thinking that you’re doing some kind of charity trying to convert us? Because every second I talk to you, I become even more liberal, if only to avoid ending up like you. You’re not helping anyone, not me, not liberals, not yourself. So why are you here?
Sure, but it’s their problem that they’re being scammed (or scamming.)
Yeah, but the law has no business telling the PGA how to run itself (except in certain limited instances); it’s a private organization.
Yes, no, no. The SAT tests only basic arithmetic and the essay isn’t scored. You may be thinking iof the SAT IIs, which AIUI are generally not considered in college applications.
Why not? Shouldn’t colleges reflect the ethnic/racial/whatever makeup of society?
Leaving aside whether you’re correct, that’s a matter for the state courts. There was no reason for Sotomayor to mention it.
Ultimately, yes. But as I said, implicit in that goal is that the ethical makeup reflects society because there is equal opportunity and therefore a statistical distribution of incoming students of different ethnicities based upon merit, not just diversity for its own sake.
If a community was 70% white and 30% black, and a school just picked an incoming class of students by grabbing the first 70 white kids that walked into Starbucks one morning and the first 30 blacks that walked into Wal-Mart the next, would you get a warm feeling because diversity had been achieved? Because if it is a goal in and of itself, you should like such an outcome.
Of course you would say that this is not your position, but then we are just talking about degrees of racial discrimination. If that 30th black guy beats out the 71st white kid because his race was used as a factor, in my mind that is just as wrong.
Diversity as a goal should be to strive for an equality of opportunity such that after n incoming classes in the community, with admission based upon non-racial factors, the average class contains 70 whites and 30 blacks.
It’s rare that we get such a textbook example of ‘attacking the poster’ so I want everyone to learn from this.
Warning issued. Don’t ever do it again.
I’m not sure where this fits into the discussion…while it’s true, these are socioeconomic considerations; not race-based ones.
The debate at hand is about the need to extend (or not) special consideration based on race alone.
Not sure where you are going with this…PGA v Martin was about disability, and the courts were way off. If I recall the case (and I’m a pretty good golfer, so I followed it), the courts decided they knew more about golf than did Jack Nicklaus. Walking is quite literally part of the game and riding a cart doesn’t equalize things; it’s apples and oranges. Like saying a guy with a visual handicap gets to use a telescopic sight for a shooting competition. Yes; his physical handicap is legit, but permitting use of a telescopic sight creates a whole different type of competitor.
For some reason in Martin, the courts thought they knew more than the PGA professionals about what golf is and isn’t.
I did a search for the term “racist” in your cite, but couldn’t find it. Perhaps I missed the section you were referring to-- can you quote it?
While I normally enjoy debunking what you write, in this case you’ve deprived me of the fun. In your first paragraph, you link to a New York Times article which clearly debunks what you say in the second paragraph. The Times article you linked to says this: “it does not directly affect the preclearance requirement in Section 5, which leaves Congress the opportunity to draft new rules – based on current conditions – to determine which states or local governments should be subject to preclearance”. You say that there’s “no determination” of which states are subject to preclearance, yet your own source says that’s flatly wrong. There can be such a determination, it merely can’t be the exact same one written in 1965. To find the reasons why the Supreme Court insisted on this change, we turn once again to the Times article that you yourself linked to: “The chief justice concludes that times have changed: the formulas that govern singling out one state from another for different treatment, which once ‘made sense,’ have lost their relevance, and ‘nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.’ But the rules governing which jurisdictions must be overseen have been repeatedly passed by Congress without change.”
This is not the only instance in which the Times article that you linked to flatly refutes what you say. You say that sections 4 and 5 “establish criteria to determine what it covers and how that is enforced”, but the Times article that you linked to points out that there are other mechanisms of enforcement, which you didn’t mention.
In short, it would probably be a good idea for you read sources before you link to them. When you link to a source which debunks what you say, it’s quite embarrassing, as you’re no doubt discovering right now.
If we didn’t have race-based preferences, we would have almost no black physicians in the entire country. That’s how disparate are the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) scores of black med school matriculants versus whites and asians.
Does it seem OK to you to have almost zero black physicians in the whole damn country? As it is, even with race-based preferential admissions and HBCUs such as Morehouse, Meharry and Howard, perhaps 4% of US physicians are black. Without race-based preferences, this number would plummet, and at higher levels of medicine (specialties, e.g.) it’s even lower. (The first-pass rate for even the most basic licensing exam is about 20% lower for under-represented minorities.) At my last board review course for a recertification (which means everyone in the room had passed a certification exam at least once), I don’t think there were 5 black physicians out of hundreds.
Or, for example, have you ever looked around the room of folks who run NASA missions and tried to find a black face (except for astronauts)? Do you think the dearth of STEM field innovators doing real work in the real world is a very good way to encourage an underprivileged kid growing up in a black ghetto that he has a chance to escape the various strikes already against him?
I second that request. YogSosoth wrote this paragraph:
“Here’s another one in North Carolina. And one in Mississippi. And Alabama. And Virginia. As this article helpfully summarizes, 5 of the 9 states covered under the VRA section 4 were already moving ahead with racist laws a few days after the SCOTUS decision was made, and around the country, conservatives are pushing dozens more laws in states to restrict voting.”
He included five links in that paragraph. None of those links make any mention of racist voting laws. They’re all about laws requiring that voters have an ID. Such laws have nothing to do with race. They apply equally to members of all races. Nor are they an attempts to “restrict voting”. Anyone who can legally vote can legally get an ID, so there’s no restriction on voting. Indeed, after Texas passed its voter ID law, voter turnout went up. Turnout among racial minorities also went up. So any claims that voter ID laws drive down turnout generally or among minorities are false.
No it does not. But I think that this needs to be the starting point for the discussion and not simply allowing a few otherwise non-qualified people to become physicians.
First, is the MCAT really the cat’s meow, so to speak, of determining who is qualified to become a physician? If so, then we need to see why black people are under performing on the test and take steps to improve that.
If not (as some like to claim of the MCAT and LSAT) then why are schools so reliant on it as a metric? We need to change that if people who would otherwise be great doctors can’t get their foot in the door because of the results of a flawed test.
However, under no circumstances would I promote a candidate simply because of race when the agreed upon metrics show that the other candidate is better qualified.
As I’ve pretty much stated that I have no faith in continuing that other argument, I’ll respond to you:
The laws cited are racist because it was blocked by the the gutted sections of the VRA. Unless you think legislators in those states would come out and say they are racist, then nothing will satisfy your request, so it is merit-less debating tactic rather than an honest inquiry of fact.
What kind of answer do you expect that will satisfy you? Please list the criteria of what can be deemed a racist law because asking someone to fit an answer into your nebulous and unstated definitions is a meaningless exercise.