|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 232:
| 
Jan 21 17:55 UTC 2003 |
It wasn't unconsitutional the last time the SC looked at it. I don't
see anything new making it unconstitutional now. In fact, any observer
can see that many minority members are not being treated equally by
the majority, in contradiction of some constitutional provisions, which
calls for some redress in order to establish constitutional observance.
|
klg
|
|
response 89 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:59 UTC 2003 |
Actually, according to my sources, the SC struck down the University of
California's race-based admission policiy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 232:
|
Jan 21 18:12 UTC 2003 |
Wasn't that after they had already changed it to be in accord with SC
rulings? I am speaking of the form that was acceptable to the SC.
|
scg
|
|
response 91 of 232:
|
Jan 21 19:37 UTC 2003 |
klg continues to look at the issue out of context. We have a group in our
country whose ancestors were kidnapped, brought over to the US or the colonies
that preceeded it in conditions that would amount to torture, and, if they
survived, enslaved for several generations. The slavery officially ended less
than 140 years ago, and was replaced by a legal system that forbade people
from that group from living in the same neighborhoods as the rest of the
population, attending the same schools as the rest of the population, or in
many areas using the same drinking fountains or bathrooms, eating in the same
restaurants, or sitting on the same part of the bus. During that period, it
was also perfectly legal to discriminate based on race in hiring, and this
was done blatantly (take a look at the employment classifieds from the Ann
Arbor News in the 1950s -- they had separate sections for "help wanted, male,"
"help wanted, female," and "help wanted, colored"). That system didn't go
away until the 1950s and 60s, at which point it was replaced by a less formal
system, in which black people are no longer prohibitted from moving into white
neighborhoods or sending their kids to white schools, but doing so often has
the effect of getting the white families in the area to decide the
neighborhood has become "unsafe," and to pack up and leave, generally taking
the jobs and other opportunities, not to mention the resale value of property
in the neighborhood, with them. So now we have a situation where most members
of this group continue to live in poverty, do far worse economically than the
rest of the population, and score lower in school. Given all this, what do
those who want to eliminate Affirmative Action now want to do instead to
remedy the situation?
In #83, jep raises some more interesting points, in terms of medical care
treating only those who need it, versus Affirmative Action treating an entire
segment of society. It should first be pointed out that that isn't always
true in the case of medical care, in dealing with big crisis situations such
as a big outbreak of some fast spreading infection. In those cases, often
everybody who has been exposed is given a vaccine or antibiotics, because it
just isn't possible to test them all, and overtreatment is considered a lesser
risk than undertreatment. Aside from that, however, if you can find black
people in the US who haven't been negatively affected by discrimination, and
can develop an easy to apply test for this, I'm eager to see your proposal.
jep also suggests that what I call "better teaching about these issues" would
really be "indoctrinating students with different political beliefs," which
he opposes. I don't think that's what I meant at all, though. When I was
in school, we generally had one week a year, around Martin Luther King Day,
when we would learn about racial discrimination. We would be told,
essentially, that The South (in other words, somewhere else) used to be
segregated, but that Martin Luther King had come along, led some marches, and
made us good Northerners aware of the problem, and as a result the problem
had been fixed and everything was equal now. To some extent, all teaching
is indoctrination, and this certainly was. It was indoctrination in a belief
that the problem was solved, and hadn't really concerned our part of the
country anyway. Imagine instead in depth presentations of the history
involved, not just in The South, but in all parts of the US, charting of
demographic data over time, up to the present, in depth discussions of how
things got to their current state and what the current state is, presentations
and analysis of arguments on many sides of the issue, and so forth. It may
be that most reasonable people woudln't come out of such a class with the
views that jep wants them to have, but the goal should be to make sure they
have enough information to make their own reasonable judgements.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 232:
|
Jan 21 19:52 UTC 2003 |
Another factor, which has not yet been discussed here, is that school is
not the "real world" in many ways. School is a period of preparation for
the "real world", and in that context, enormous effort is already being
put into helping the struggling student. Additional resources, of time
and personnel is required to do this over what is required for teaching
the average student. The object is to educate everyone to the highest
level they desire or can attain, and if this requires more "action" for
those lagging, it is provided.
We know that when students finally do enter the "real world" after
schooling, be it just high school, or college to, they will face forms
of discrimination too. This is where our constitutional protections
really operate, so that adults have a more even world in terms of
employment, travel and accomodations, participation in civil affairs
and government, etc.
Therefore, in prepartion for adulthood, there is plenty of justification
for providing the effort needed so that everyone leaving the school system
is as well prepared as possible (or as desired), acknowledging that this
means unequal application of resources, so they are distributed where the
are needed most. Equality of access to education was not being attained
because of the effects of continuing discrimination toward some
minorities.
|
klg
|
|
response 93 of 232:
|
Jan 21 20:31 UTC 2003 |
The "context" is the U.S. constitution. Or don't you believe in
following the law?
|
mdw
|
|
response 94 of 232:
|
Jan 21 22:16 UTC 2003 |
The US constitution does not exist in isolation, but is explicitly
embedded in common law. That makes part of a much larger and older
matrix of logic. The SC, and the decisions they make, good or bad, are
part of that matrix. Are you disagreeing with the SC's interpretation
that said quotas are no good, but that certain forms of preferential
treatment were acceptable?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:13 UTC 2003 |
Minors are not provided for in the Constitution, except to exclude them
from participation in much of society. What provisions of the US
Constitution apply particularly to minors, other than by assuming
"persons" includes minors? The statutory law is very mixed on this, but
certainly a great deal of discretion is granted both parents and the State
to determine provisions for minors. This is in the context in which it is
certainly permissible to apply whatever remedies seem necessary for the
education of minors, including provisions to assist in the education of
minority minors. I do not see any good reasons why States should not
have the power to use affirmative action to redress some inequalities in
access to education.
|
scg
|
|
response 96 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:35 UTC 2003 |
While Rane is trying to justify something I support, his argument is bullshit.
Affirmative Action doesn't apply only to minors. In fact, in this particular
case, many college freshman and just about all law school applicants are not
minors. Furthermore, it's now illegal in the US to discriminate among minors
based on race, just as it is for adults.
The legal basis for Affirmative Action and the like has been that the
underlying segregegation was illegal, and Affirmative Action was the least
intrusive way to counter that.
|
klg
|
|
response 97 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:46 UTC 2003 |
What part of "No state shall . . . deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" does mdw believe is
negated by "a much larger and older matrix of logic?" Sounds pretty
clear to me - and it does not include and ifs, ands, or buts, least not
as I can see. If you don't feel it's necessary to respect the
Constitution, then don't come whining to me when you suspect that others
may be violating lesser laws.
|
scg
|
|
response 98 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:06 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative Action is an attempt to restore some approximation of equal
protection of the laws, not to circumvent it.
|
scott
|
|
response 99 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:07 UTC 2003 |
Re 97: Can you reconcile your quote with the long period of time in which
slavery was explicity legal in the United States?
|
klg
|
|
response 100 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:18 UTC 2003 |
I don't have to. (A) Slavery was wrong. (B) Affirmative action (i.e.,
lack of equal protection) is illegal under the Constitution. You cannot
construct a logical argument to prove that (B) is untrue based on the
prior existence of slavery.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 101 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:47 UTC 2003 |
(B) is a statement without foundation. In fact, it is wrong: Affirmative
Action is NOT a lack of equal protection.
|
jep
|
|
response 102 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:20 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree that affirmative action is unconstitutional. The
Constitution is a set of guidelines, not exact laws closely covering
varieties of circumstances. Every "right" is moderated. Affirmative
action laws are clearly not intended to evade or contradict the
Constitution, not at least as a general rule.
But I don't think they're intended to correct any past or present
wrongs, either. What they're intended to do is buy votes by segmenting
society and giving parts of it favors. I don't think there's been much
reduction in discrimination or racism because of affirmative action,
any more than there was from desegregation busing. There's less racism
and much less discrimination, but it's come because of laws prohibiting
it, and changes in society's view, not because of affirmative action.
No minorities are going to be hurt by losing the chance to be given
positions in colleges they could not earn.
Instead, I think society's resources would be better used in finding a
way to correct the lack of respect for, and accomplishment in,
education among minorities. Inner city black kids don't *want* to be
educated. Their parents aren't that interested. They don't think they
can get a better life that way.
Why aren't they? Because the schools are bad, the schools are full of
drugs and rife with violence, the teachers are intimidated or
disillusioned? Or because U-M doesn't drop admissions standards low
enough to let those people get in (and fail out) if they want to?
|
klg
|
|
response 103 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:28 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative action is, by practice (if not by definition), preference.
Equality is the opposite of preference.
Affirmative action is the opposite of equality.
Equality is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Affirmative action is contrary to the Constitution.
jep: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the
guidelines of the land. Is it a "suggestion" that the presidential term
is 4 years or a just a "good idea" to abolish slavery??
|
jep
|
|
response 104 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:33 UTC 2003 |
re resp:91: If you want to carry the medical care and affirmative
action analogy even further, then I'm willing to counter it.
Immunization *work*. You get a shot for, say, German measles, as
almost everyone entering school does, and you don't get measles. If
you had to keep getting measles shots continuously for 40 years and
then still almost always got the disease, some people might start
scratching their heads and wondering just why they still got the shots.
With affirmative action, though, we just keep doing it, and never mind
that it doesn't help anything. "At least we're doing something."
|
scg
|
|
response 105 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:49 UTC 2003 |
I think if Affirmative Action opponents were conecntrating on fixing the
problems John mentions in the second sentence of his last paragraph, they'd
be getting a lot less opposition from Affirmative Action supporters. That
they generally aren't shows their claims to be supporting racial equality to
be pretty hollow.
However, having spent some time tutoring kids in a middle school in a rather
rough neighborhood of Detroit, I will take issue with John's second to last
paragraph. I don't think I encountered any cases of kids not wanting to
learn. I did encounter lots of cases of kids thinking they couldn't learn
various things, and being very excited to find that they could. There's a
huge difference.
re 97, 99, and 100:
The Equal Protection Clause is in the 14th Ammendment, which was added
to the Constitution during the post-Civil War Reconstruction. It doesn't have
to be reconciled with slavery, because slavery had ready been eliminated.
It did take another 80 or so years before the courts started striking down
other forms of discrimination based on that ammendment.
Still, it would be nice if klg would stay on top of his own argument enough
that I wouldn't have to make it for him. He's been handed an easy to rebut
argument, based on a part of the Constitution that he had either just looked
up or had memorized, and yet he completely missed it.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 232:
|
Jan 22 05:13 UTC 2003 |
I take it resp:105 refers to resp:102.
I've never had any contact with inner city kids. However, I've read
about inner city kids not getting an education, not attending classes,
not graduating, and about their parents not really caring or at least
not knowing what they could do. That was the basis of my comment.
These things aren't a problem?
Steve, I think you're both highly intelligent and highly thoughtful. I
also think your heart's in the right place. I very much enjoy reading
almost all of your comments. But in this case, it seems like you're
talking past me.
I perceive that affirmative action is not accomplishing much. There
are some good effects, and I've conceded those. There are also some
bad ones. I don't recall if you've conceded that, but others on your
side of the discussion have, and I'd hope we can agree to stipulate
that there are some bad effects. It all adds up, to me, in there not
being much improvement coming from affirmative action.
I don't know what to do about the problems of inner city high schools.
I wish I did. If I did, if I thought anyone did, I would be willing to
vote more tax money to address the problem. I might be willing to do
other things, too. Volunteer, for example, if I thought I could make a
difference.
I don't know how to correct the problems of racism, racial
discrimination, prejudice and inequity in society. I wish I knew how
to at least lessen these problems. If affirmative action for
admissions at U-M was really effective, I wouldn't be against it. I'm
not harmed by it personally. I don't think my kids will be borderline
U-M applicants who are likely to be affected. (One will probably make
it easily if he wants to, the other likely will not make it, unless he
makes it an important goal and works hard for it. I don't expect that
to happen.) I don't have anything to gain or lose.
I'm just trying to look at it from the perspective of fairness and
effectiveness. I think affirmative action is generally unfair, and I
think it doesn't work. In order for something unfair to be acceptable,
it's got to work in the way that's intended. The more unfair, the
better it's got to work. I don't think affirmative action makes the
cut.
I think having a competitive school like Michigan giving bonus
admissions points by race, specifically, is a bad idea. No, I don't
have another affirmative action plan to replace it. You've won that
point. Now, tell me why you support it, even though it doesn't work,
or supply some persuasion that shows it *does* work.
|
mdw
|
|
response 107 of 232:
|
Jan 22 06:44 UTC 2003 |
If I understand what klg is saying, he thinks the constitution
supersedes the SC and common law.
Interestingly, a google search on
constitution "common law"
finds a whole bunch of documents that claim the constitution was never
properly ratified and therefore isn't actually enforceable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 232:
|
Jan 22 07:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #96" c'mon Steve, I never said that affirmative action applies "only to
minors". I was developing the thesis that it applies more naturally to
minors, because of the established law that makes minors, in a sense,
wards of their parents and the State.
Having spent most of my career in academia, I disagree strongly with
jep that it's positive effects are not very evident. They are VERY
evident when one looks at who it assisted in more detail. There is an
increased corp of well educated minorities in all disciplines who got
some boost from affirmative action. What you see as reduced discrimination
and more access of minorities to all walks of life is due to BOTH
laws (the stick) and affirmative action (the carrot).
What those that oppose affirmative action should do is work to further
eliminate discrimination againsty minorities. As that progresses, the
need for affirmative action will fade, and eventually they will attain
their objective of the elimination of affirmative action, because it will
no longer be needed.
As matters stand now, I always get the strong sense that those that
argue against affirmative action are actually trying to slow or cut
back the progress that has been made by minorities in our society. There
is a certain sense of rationality in the "inequality" argument against
affirmative action, which those that would prefer to discriminate find
useful as an argument.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 109 of 232:
|
Jan 22 10:03 UTC 2003 |
re #107: The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of its meaning
in our system, but the Constitution *does* supercede common law.
|
gull
|
|
response 110 of 232:
|
Jan 22 14:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #104: We now have far more minorities in positions of power and
influence than we did 20 years ago. I'm not sure we can come to the
conclusion that affirmative action isn't "working". Colin Powell has
been pretty frank in saying he benefited from it.
Re #106: Kids who learn things and don't get into trouble don't make
very good media copy, do they? The media gives a really skewed view of
what inner city life is like, I suspect.
There was a great political cartoon in the Free Press yesterday. It had
a series of students, labelled 'Soccer player', 'Son of graduate', 'Son
of major donor', 'Raised out of state', and 'Minority'. At the end was
a student, marked 'Didn't get in', pointing at the minority student and
saying 'It's his fault!'
|
jep
|
|
response 111 of 232:
|
Jan 22 18:49 UTC 2003 |
re resp:108: Any time anyone says they oppose any sort of program
regarding race, for any reason at all other than that they favor a
bigger and more expensive program, they're accused of being a racist.
If you're going to assume I am a racist, there's nothing whatsoever I
can do to counter your assumption, other than to fall into line and
agree with you. There's no need for you to look any further than that
in order to answer anything I say that you disagree with.
I think there are other reasons, not requiring bigotry, for disliking
affirmative action. If you are unable to perceive that someone can
have another position on this matter but still want to see reductions
in racism, there's nothing for you and I to discuss in this item.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 112 of 232:
|
Jan 22 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting that no one is motivated by racism in opposing affirmative
action?
The arguments against affirmative action, trying to assert that equality
demands its end, although we don't hear from the same people that equality
demands the end of discrimination, seem disingenuous. Those attacking
affirmative action do not put the same effort into seeking solutions to
the problem of discrimination.
|