response 201 of 217:

Mar 7 20:58 UTC 2003

  And many insist that it means what it says when what it says agrees with
  their interpretation and then claim it means something else when it's not
  so convenient to read it literally.

response 203 of 217:

Mar 8 00:30 UTC 2003

I don't believe there is one person in the country who believes in the 
strictest, most literal, restrictive possible interpretation of the 
Constitution for every possible situation which can come up.  Not as a 
guide to running the government.  If there is such a person, I'm sure 
he's institutionalized somewhere.

response 205 of 217:

Mar 8 01:11 UTC 2003

Re #196:
    I oppose Affirmative Action and I have stated a solution to the problem
of discrimination based on race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what
race any applicant is.

Re #200: Where, exactly, *does* the Constitution say that "everyone is equal"?

response 207 of 217:

Mar 8 01:48 UTC 2003

>I have stated a solution to the problem of discrimination based on 
>race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what
>race any applicant is.

That my be do-able in college admissions, but almost impossible in 
practice for most other situations (applying for housing, say, or a 
job).

Opponents of affirmative action could make a lot more headway if they 
were as vigorous in their promotion of all anti-discrimination policies, 
and not just those that hold down the white man.

response 209 of 217:

Mar 8 07:45 UTC 2003

  And why is it necessary for them to do so?

response 211 of 217:

Mar 10 00:57 UTC 2003

Re #210:  Perhaps they believe that the means being used to correct
the problem are worse than the problem, or the government is not
entitled to use such means under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution isn't worth much if the government can ignore it.

response 213 of 217:

Apr 1 01:42 UTC 2003

Is Diversity Overrated?
By STANLEY ROTHMAN
March 29, 2003

NORTHAMPTON, Mass.
The Supreme Court hears arguments next week in the cases that may 
determine whether racial and ethnic preferences in higher education 
admissions and hiring are preserved or discarded.  Whatever it decides, 
the court should be skeptical of one of the most popular justifications 
for preferential treatment of minority applicants: that a diverse 
student body necessarily improves the quality of education for everyone.

One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of diversity in 
higher education indicates that this contention is at least 
questionable.  The study's findings show that college diversity programs 
fail to raise standards, and that a majority of faculty members and 
administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously. . .

(I)n 1999 we surveyed a random sample of more than 1,600 students and 
2,400 faculty members and administrators at 140 American colleges and 
universities, asking them to evaluate the quality of education at their 
institution, the academic preparation and work habits of the student 
body, the state of race relations on campus and their own experiences of 
discrimination. . . 

If diversity works as advertised, we surmised, then those at 
institutions with higher proportions of black enrollment should rate 
their educational and racial milieus more favorably than their peers at 
institutions with lower proportions.

The results contradict almost every benefit claimed for campus 
diversity.  Students, faculty members and administrators all responded 
to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction 
with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers.  
Students also increasingly complained about discrimination.

Moreover, diversity fails to deliver even when all else is equal. . . . 
A higher level of diversity is associated with somewhat less educational 
satisfaction and worse race relations among students. . . 

We also asked students about policies used to increase diversity.  Three 
out of four oppose "relaxing academic standards" to increase minority 
representation, as do a majority of faculty members.  And an 
overwhelming 85 percent of students specifically reject the use of 
racial or ethnic "preferences" along with a majority of faculty members. 
 More telling, 62 percent of minority students oppose relaxing 
standards, and 71 percent oppose preferences.

Among the most striking findings is the silent opposition of so many who 
administer these programs  yet must publicly support them.  Although a 
small majority of administrators support admissions preferences, 47.7 
percent oppose them.  In addition, when asked to estimate the impact of 
preferential admissions on university academic standards, about 
two-thirds say there is none.  Most dismaying, of those who think that 
preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it 
negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1. . . .

Stanley Rothman, professor emeritus of government at Smith College, is 
director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

response 215 of 217:

May 13 01:51 UTC 2003

Why, Mr. jmsaul!  Are you addressing nous?

response 217 of 217:

May 16 16:43 UTC 2003

So please, show us your data.