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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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. 

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!'

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. 

response 114 of 232:

Jan 22 21:47 UTC 2003

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is impossible to discriminate
based on information that one does not possess. Deny the decision makers any
and all knowledge of what color any applicant is! Applicant race is properly
irrelevant to deciding who gets into the University; keep this information
scrupulously and painstakingly *OUT* of the input.

Same goes for deciding who gets hired by a company.

response 116 of 232:

Jan 22 22:28 UTC 2003

re resp:12: Rane, in resp:108 you said you *always* get the sense that 
anyone who's against affirmative action is in favor of slowing or 
reversing the progress that's been made.  I think, from that, that you 
mean it as an accusation of racism.  *You're* suggesting that *every 
person* opposing affirmative action is a racist.  I'm suggesting maybe 
some of us are not.

response 118 of 232:

Jan 22 23:36 UTC 2003

  Before you all start dropping the "R" word on John, consider whether he
  isn't just as entitled to argue that it applies to those who *support*
  affirmative action..