Rocket League Let's Play, Tusks: The Orc Dating Sim, Running With Rifles, The Most Unexciting Video Games You Can Think Of
What is this place? Who are you people? Read this helpful guide to find out!
Want to advertise with GWJ? Sorry, we don't run ads on the website, just the podcast. If you need something else, hit us up!
In principle, affirmative action is completely constitutional. Excuse me while I go dance a happy jig for a couple hours.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"Butt hat is my opinion and we all know how far that goes around here." - Demonicmaster
"Dammit Rat Boy, I just came to post that." - Stele
When I saw this story break, I wondered to myself, ""how long until Rat Boy makes the post?""
Not bad, Rat Boy...
In other news, if affirmitive action were even fair to begin with, it still would be an abomination because of the way it''s abused.
I called it, just sayin'.
They can no longer use the point system, that was my big beef with the case. 20points for being black should not be more important than grades
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
Actually, I think it''s a fair balancing of the practice. I''m hearing both sides declaring victory on this one. That''s usually a good sign.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
It''s called compromise, a very new and radical concept from the same people that brought you tolerance, understanding, and politeness.
Yes, yes, the evil election stealing Supreme Court has given the nod to affirmative action. The point system was at least objective, I don''t even understand what standard the law school was using. Can anyone articulate it for me?
My constitutional law professor was one of the attorneys that worked on the Bakke case. This case reaffirms Bakke with a twist. The justification for Bakke was to remedy past discrimination. Basically, shifting discrimination from one group to another as ""payback"". Now the justification is that ""diversity"" at schools is a compelling interest.
The Court can call anything it wants ""a compelling interest"". I''m all for giving the little guy a step up. However, emphasis on diversity merely reinforces a stereotypical belief: that white people are different than black people and other minorities. If they are, how so, and what is keeping them from our colleges?
I certainly want minorities to succeed, each of us has a ""compelling interest"" in the achievement of all Americans. Rather than use the disingenous argument, ""it''ll help white people if they are exposed to people of color"" -which I believe the Supreme Court alludes to- we should take a good look at the real issues: poorly run and dangerous schools, broken families, crime, drugs and a seemingly unending cycle of poverty.
I know many people think that ""the man"" wants to keep certain people down. If this is true, than why has the University of Michigan tried so hard to keep the preferential system active? I live in Georgia, and our schools make substantial efforts to attract minorities, especially the University of Georgia, where an education to a top 25 school is gratis if you maintain a ""B"" average. Despite UGA''s efforts, which are similar to the University of Michigan''s and the subject of a lawsuit, they have been unable to maintain a statistical average of minorities or even increase their rosters to any negligible degree. What I''m saying is Blacks are not being turned away from good schools.
Nevertheless, I do not believe this decision is the end of the world. If it helps minorities succeed, even a little, that''s great. As I said before, I don''t think it will because I don''t think it addresses the real problems facing people today.
Hello my baby!!!
Technically the Copyright Extension Act was constitutional, as was the CIPA''s faulty library filters. Doesn''t mean its a good idea. I don''t know much about affirmative action, just showing my disregard for the usefulness of the Supreme Court in cases like this. The Legislative branch should be fixing it''s mistakes, not the Judicial.
"But when the game, the second-person engine, starts again, it tells you about yourself ... like Scheherazade and her king mixed up together in one, trying over and over to tell yourself your own story, and get it right" - You by Austin Grossman
I don''t even understand what standard the law school was using. Can anyone articulate it for me?
My understanding is that it is not standardized which is why, strangely, in this case it is acceptable. If it were standardized it would have been struck down as was the situation with the undergraduate practices.
I''m all for giving the little guy a step up. However, emphasis on diversity merely reinforces a stereotypical belief: that white people are different than black people and other minorities.
From a socio-economic perspective they are. There''s just no refuting that.
Rather than use the disingenous argument
That''s completely subjective and presumptuous.
poorly run and dangerous schools, broken families, crime, drugs and a seemingly unending cycle of poverty.
So, then you think denying the segment of the population most affected by these societal ills additional resources in education is a ... good thing?
What I''m saying is Blacks are not being turned away from good schools.
That''s not actually the issue here. At least not the issue these people are tackling.
Having lived in the South, and attended an SEC school, I wouldn''t be too quick to say Blacks aren''t being discouraged from attending universities. While it is certainly not the policy of any accredited state university to oppose minority admissions, I''ve seen first hand exactly the concerns you address as part of the problem: crime, poverty, drugs, etc. So, all that crime and poverty you worry about is not just a problem in a general societal sense (one which education can only help), but proves to obstruct educational expansion for that segment of the population. Thus, poor schools have a hard time attracting quality teachers (a recurring issue if less minorities receive degrees) and so that ""B"" average considered equitable proves a greater struggle for minorities. It''s vaguely reminiscent of requiring voters to pass tests before granting voting right during Reconstruction - on the surface it is equitable, but it''s clearly a detriment to that segment of the population least likely to receive quality education. But again, that''s not the issue.
The real issue is your characterization of Michigan''s argument as disingenuous. I just don''t see how you think creating a diverse environment is a smoke screen? It seems personally dismissive, but not empirically so. I have no doubt that exposure to diverse cultures, races, viewpoints, and socio-economic backgrounds is an integral part of a global educational experience.
Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees with me. Nice job tossing in the election stealing thing, though.
You have completely missed the point of my argument, but I blame myself for failing to cite authorities to my argument. I thought you would take my word for it.
The following link is to an article that states that the University of Georgia is losing minority student admissions ""For a variety of reasons, many of the Georgia's top black high school students are deciding not to attend the state's flagship university"" The reasons stated? ""picking other schools where they say they feel more comfortable or can get more financial aid."" Does that sound like Blacks opportunities are limited?
Buried in the article is how Jeb Bush''s ""One Florida""plan actually increased the number of minorities in State Schools.
The following is Justice Sandra Connor''s rationale for her ""swing vote"" on upholding affirmative action: She declared that the Constitution ""does not prohibit the law school''s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.""
My argument is not subjective, it is taken from Justice O''Conner. Her argument is window dressing, and addresses none of your concerns. The basis of her argument is that different cultures in schools will ""educate"" students more. Think back to our WMD discussion. You like to hear the plain truth. Why doesn''t she say what she means?
Blacks are not getting turned away from schools, nor are they being denied a college education. But, unfortunately, many minorities are not achieving the skills necessary to reach that goal. This is for the reasons stated in our previous posts. I''m for expanding the pool of potential college students. Look at the statistics of minorities in jail, on drugs, uneducated, impoverished. Do you really think that is because of a lack of ""preferential"" ivy league college programs? The Bakke decision has been with us since 1986. It has been constitutional to use race as a factor in school admission for 17 years, yet we still have the same problems.
Further, if you believe minorities are getting ivy league educations to start careers as a school teachers in Brooklyn, please post a link to support that argument.
I think it is unfair to compare the ""B"" average scholarship with the literacy tests for voting. Achievement in the former would benefit the student and society, whereas the latter was clearly meant to unconstitutionally prevent persons from voting. A person should have the right to vote even if they can not read. Do you mean to suggest the reverse, that a person that can not read is entitled to a college degree?
I''m glad you and the Supreme Court are on good terms again. However, the Supreme Court has also held that it was constitutional to detain Japanese Americans in internship camps (a decision that has never been reversed). In other words, the Court has the constitutional right to be wrong sometimes. Any law that discriminates on the basis of race is unconstitutional, and another four years of George Bush will remedy that. Hmmmm...isn''t Sandra Conner retiring soon?
You have completely missed the point of my argument
It wouldn''t be the first time I went off on my own tangent.
My argument is not subjective
I wasn''t characterizing your entire argument as subjective. Just the characterization of UofM''s argument as disingenuous.
The basis of her argument is that different cultures in schools will ""educate"" students more.
One can be educated without a curriculum. Have you never learned anything in a social or racial sense from a member of a minority? I know I have.
Look at the statistics of minorities in jail, on drugs, uneducated, impoverished. Do you really think that is because of a lack of ""preferential"" ivy league college programs?
First, we''re not talking about ivy league schools, and second yes. I think that a cycle that prevents the kids in jail, on drugs, and who are uneducated from having access to top level educators plays a part, I think the perception that having no hope of elevating from such a status plays a part, I think that black/latino/native american/etc. people who go to these colleges, become educated, and return to their communities (or even just represent the opportunity for success) can help. I don''t think it''ll happen in 1 or even 2 generations, but it''s making a difference.
And, why there are so many blacks in prison is a variety of issues. Not the least of which is that by the Dept. of Justice''s own statistics a higher percentage of young white men (per capita) use illegal drugs while a higher percentage of young black men are in prison for drug use.
Further, if you believe minorities are getting ivy league educations to start careers as a school teachers in Brooklyn, please post a link to support that argument.
Again, not Ivy League. University of Michigan is a state school. And second, take a trip down to Brooklyn and check out the percentage of black teachers to white.
Do you mean to suggest the reverse, that a person that can not read is entitled to a college degree?
I mean that everyone should have the equal opportunity to learn to read in the first place. That''s not the case right now.
I''m glad you and the Supreme Court are on good terms again.
We''re not. I just wanted to point out that I didn''t include the election scandal rhetoric.
Any law that discriminates on the basis of race is unconstitutional, and another four years of George Bush will remedy that.
Because he won so big this time. This was the definitive statement on Affirmitive Action in schools. You won''t see this case before the Supreme Court again for a decade. By that time the country will have come to its senses and there''ll be a liberal in the White House again, the way it''s supposed to be.
The labels ""liberal"" and ""conservative"" have no meaning any more. We''re all moderates.
Your point is taken about Ivy League schools, although they will be affected by this ruling. We are not, however, dealing with community colleges, we are talking about top ranked schools.
Most of the teachers in the urban areas are white. Honestly, I don''t make this stuff up:
""The disparity is greater in urban areas, such as New York City, where most students are minorities, and most teachers are white."" Bakke hasn''t changed that. There''s no evidence that easier admission into top schools will change that either.
As far as minorities not believing they can be elevated, who is giving them that idea? Colin Powell and Connie Rice are the highest ranking minority political officials in the history of this country. Please review this list of the top minority ceo''s:
Ceo''s of AOL, Time-Warner, Merrill Lynch. It doesn''t get much better than that. Those aren''t token positions to promote ""diversity"". Who is telling Black people they can''t succeed? I want names.
You''ve given the ten years before this case will be reviewed. The Court says 25. I say five. When Scalia becomes Chief Justice a lot of weird things are going to happen. It even scares me.
Quotas were struck down in Bakke and now the point system is struck down in Bollinger. Now it''s back to the drawing board for the undergraduate school to come up with another system. The Court identified the law school race conscious program as a ""holistic review"" to obtain a ""critical mass"" of minorities. Enact that.
To change the topic a little, the real solution is school vouchers, something Blacks support but liberals don''t.
Why is that? Is it because liberals know whats best for blacks?
Damn. I had a thick response written out, and got an invalid session. Mostly it was just more ''I''m right and you''re wrong'' stuff, so probably no big loss. One point I do want to note, and maybe I''ll readdress the rest in the morning, is your top minority CEOs. From your article.
There are three black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies
A pretty significant disparity, don''t you think? And just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of these CEOs you prop up as proof that Bakke has done nothing, would be in the same position without educational affirmitive action? The fact that more black people are in positions of power, and that the gap between avg. income of whites vs. blacks, may be the best argument yet _for_ the relevance of this kind of ruling.
3 out of 500? Proof positive that the ""good ol'' boys"" network is alive and kicking.
I received an invalid sessions as well. So my second posting will be brief. This is a good way to keep the message sizes to a minimum.
First, the list was not meant to ""prop up"" the argument that Bakke failed. It''s a response to your point that many minorities believe they can not elevate their circumstances. Further, you mischaracterize the article when you say ""only three CEO''s"". The article makes the point that a title doesn''t necessarily equal clout. The persons listed are presidents, vice presidents, CEO''S, CFO''s, publishers and chairman of very influential and successful companies.
We''ll never know how many benefitted from educational affirmative action. However, whether they achieved success based on race probably wouldn''t be a factor absent affirmative action.
Incidentally, the Court has struck down affirmative action in every other governmental functions ie. hiring and contracts. Yet black net wealth has increased 321%.
I believe at some point we will move from a race based preferential system to a true race neutral achievement based system and we will be a better nation for it. The majority of the Supreme Court believes it will take 25 years. I certainly hope it''s sooner than that. Other nonwhite groups suchs as Asians have certainly achieved collegiate success and there''s certainly no reason other minorities can''t reach similar results.
I''ll end by emphasizing my reoccuring theme: Nothwithstanding the ""educational benefits"" Justice O''Conner contends whites will enjoy with more diverse campuses, the Bollinger cases do not address the real issue: increasing the pool of college qualified minority applicants.