Kolo

Several years ago, in twin cases involving undergraduate and law school admissions policies at the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that race can be considered in admitting student to state universities. Grutz v. Bollinger struck down a policy whereby all minority applicants received 20 points on a scale which graded applicants, where those points essentially created a quota of minorities in every law school class. But Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the use of race as one of many factors which can be evaluated, on an individual basis, for determining worthiness for admission to UM's undergraduate school.

Stout

Affirmative action is nothing short of a crime. It perpetuates the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. No matter why or how it began, it simply doesn't work. In no way is it ever a good idea to say no matter what, X amount of this group MUST be granted special treatment. Why? Because everybody in group Y is being discriminated against. In this case, discriminated against racially.

Affirmative action, which is meant to prevent one form of racial discrimination, instead only achieves a different form of discrimination.

__________________
The Arizona Cardinals...hitch a ride on the bandwagon while there's still room!!!

and

Break the circle of suck, Bidwill, or feel my wrath--Stout, 26 Feb 2006.*

*--Note: this part of Stout's signature line is on hold. It has not yet been deleted, but once the Cardinal's make the playoffs, it shall be removed. Thank you, and I now return you to your regularly sheduled thread.

Djaughe

Sure AA is racial and is discriminatory....and arguably a temporary correction to our history of oppressing minorities (residential segregation and disproportionate funding of school systems).

Kolo

The standard by which AA was affirmed (if I remember Con Law correctly) is that the government can classify according to race (and thus pretend the 14th Amendment was never enacted) under limited circumstances: the classification must pass strict judicial scrutiny; the classification must serve a compeling governmental interest (in this case, the interest is a diverse student body); and the classification must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest (in Grutz, simply giving 20 points on an admissions scale was ruled not to be narrowly tailored, but permitting admissions officers to arbitrarily pick minorities over better-qualified white applicants is narrowly tailored).

If anybody's interested, that is.

Stout

Because two wrongs always makes a right? Wait, no they don't. They often do? Wait, they don't.

Because AA actually works? Wait, no it doesn't. Because AA always, and even most of the time, brings in better qualified candidates? Wait, no it doesn't.

The intentions were good, the basis fundamentally flawed, and the enactment and enforcement absolutely disasterous.

__________________
The Arizona Cardinals...hitch a ride on the bandwagon while there's still room!!!

and

Break the circle of suck, Bidwill, or feel my wrath--Stout, 26 Feb 2006.*

*--Note: this part of Stout's signature line is on hold. It has not yet been deleted, but once the Cardinal's make the playoffs, it shall be removed. Thank you, and I now return you to your regularly sheduled thread.

Djaughe

If we only had to deal with something as simple as 2 wrongs then our society would be a much better place.

Obviously AA can be looked at either as an upperhand or a hand out..depending on the persons perspective.

Stout

Any law, or similar initiative, set in motion by the US that takes liberty away from one segment of the community to give an advantage to another segment of the community is WRONG. IN NO WAY should I, a white man, have to fear losing a job to a less qualified person because of a difference in race, ethnicity, or gender.

On the flip side, someone of a different race, ethnicity, or gender should not be discriminated against based upon that difference. Is there a real way to enforce this? No, there is not, at least not beyond fines, sanctions, and legal action against liable parties that do discriminate.

That's all we can do, folks. Giving advantages for no tangible reason other than race, ethnicity, and gender, and giving advantages because of PAST misdeeds by OTHER people is morally and legally WRONG. It's disgusting that our judicial system can warp itself into a politically-correct yet morally wrong opinion that AA is all right. It is fundamentally WRONG.

__________________
The Arizona Cardinals...hitch a ride on the bandwagon while there's still room!!!

and

Break the circle of suck, Bidwill, or feel my wrath--Stout, 26 Feb 2006.*

*--Note: this part of Stout's signature line is on hold. It has not yet been deleted, but once the Cardinal's make the playoffs, it shall be removed. Thank you, and I now return you to your regularly sheduled thread.

krepitch

I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, but isn't the requirement of AA programs to expand the pool of candidates for certain jobs, not to set quotas for certain numbers of minorities to be hired?

JPlay

The intent of the law is not to give an opportunity to a less qualified candidate, it is to give the opportunity to the minority candidate assuming job qualifications are equal.


It amazes me that White Americans are so scared about losing out to the few minorities who are actually in a position for these job opportunities when it's obvious that these corporations and businesses are overwhelmingly employed by White Americans.

If this was a perfect world everybody would be hired and promoted equally without regard to race, however the statistics show otherwise and that is a factor of these companies being more than predominantly run by White Americans who tend to hire and promote other White Americans.

Statistics show the playing field is not equal and this is a way to level it for minorities.

Kolo

It's not a requirement of AA programs, but it's an effect of them. For a school to consider minority candidates sufficient to diversify its student body, it will necessarily have to expand the pool--as opposed to simply saying only 3.8 gpa's and 1200 SAT's will be accepted, which effectively makes the student body more white and Asian and less Black.

JPlay

Like 2pac said, Dear Mr. President, "I want my 40 acres and mule that was never given to us"

Djaughe

The problem with this perception is that it ignores the past...AA is intended to deal with past (and present) discrimination and prejudice through the system of inclusion.

AA was never announced as a 'cure-all' for our societys future...but as the most effective way to cure a society of past and current exclusionary practices by making special efforts of inclusion...which is exactly what affirmative action does.

40yearfan

Once upon a time, we needed AA. It has done it's job and is now an anacronism. We no longer need it.

We can reinact it in about 40 years when the Caucasian population is no longer the dominant population and will need protection.

__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain

Djaughe

Has it?

When did AA reach the magical milestone of social equality?

Derm

I got AA'd out of a spot in med school a number of years back. I was pissed because I had great new business model as a "Mobile Gynecologist". My motto: "Our doctors at your cervix 24 hours a day"