Court Rules Michigan's Voter Approved Affirmative Action Ban is Unconstitutional

[Ice]

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Michigan voters did not have the right in 2006 to ban public colleges and universities from considering race and ethnicity in admissions.
The 2-to-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was based on the idea that the referendum that voters approved had the effect of denying political rights to minority citizens in Michigan. State officials immediately announced an appeal, which will have the effect of keeping the Michigan ban on consideration of race in place for now

...

Minority citizens are at a disadvantage under Michigan's ban on the consideratiittees or campaign to elect trustees (as Michigan's three universities have trustees elected in statewide elections). But someone seeking to restore the consideration of race in admissions would have to push for a new vote by the state -- a much more difficult task to accomplish.

"The stark contrast between the avenues for political change available to different admissions proponents following Proposal 2 illustrates why the amendment cannot be construed as a mere repeal of an existing race-related policy," said the decision. "Had those favoring abolition of race-conscious admissions successfully lobbied the universities' admissions units, just as underrepresented minorities did to have these policies adopted in the first place, there would be no equal protection problem."




This probably won't last though:



The two judges in the majority -- Ransey Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey -- were both nominated by President Clinton. Judge Gibbons was nominated by President George W. Bush. One reason some doubt that the full appeals court will uphold Friday's decision is that 10 of its 15 members are Republican appointees.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-07-05-michigan-affirmative-action_n.htm#

Would defenders of the appellate court care to argue its point? Quite honestly, this seems like quite a lot of B.S. to me.

[Centurion1]

This probably won't last though:



http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-07-05-michigan-affirmative-action_n.htm#

Would defenders of the appellate court care to argue its point? Quite honestly, this seems like quite a lot of B.S. to me.

I hate affirmative action quite a bit. I simply hated it more after going through the process of applying to the military academies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hate affirmative action quite a bit. I simply hated it more after going through the process of applying to the military academies.
You should chill bro. It's one thing to think it is a bad policy, but hating it is just dumb. Bad policies are not evil policies. Some one at some point it was a good idea to try and help blacks get into college since they were repressed for decades and decades. By this point, those that would have helped themselves have mostly done so already and are living in the middle class now, so the policy is just outdated.



Would defenders of the appellate court care to argue its point? Quite honestly, this seems like quite a lot of B.S. to me.

Legal precedent is B.S.? They followed the example of two SCOTUS rulings that were related to the situation. The two person majority thought this case was similar enough for precedent to be applied and the single person minority thought it didn't. What a bunch of activist liberals!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This probably won't last though:



http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-07-05-michigan-affirmative-action_n.htm#

Would defenders of the appellate court care to argue its point? Quite honestly, this seems like quite a lot of B.S. to me.

Just goes to show - Affirmative Action is basically illegal in Europe by treaty, the ECHR would eat this decision for breakfast.

[Centurion1]

You should chill bro. It's one thing to think it is a bad policy, but hating it is just dumb. Bad policies are not evil policies. Some one at some point it was a good idea to try and help blacks get into college since they were repressed for decades and decades. By this point, those that would have helped themselves have mostly done so already and are living in the middle class now, so the policy is just outdated.



Legal precedent is B.S.? They followed the example of two SCOTUS rulings that were related to the situation. The two person majority thought this case was similar enough for precedent to be applied and the single person minority thought it didn't. What a bunch of activist liberals!

Naw I hate it. Did you know when applying to the Naval Academy as a minority you are allowed to have up to .3 lower on your GPA and like 200 points off your sat as minimum standards. This is to produce not only our fighting men and women but officer corp? You know the people who hold the vast majority of responsibility for our billions of dollars worth of equipment and more importantly our soldiers lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Naw I hate it. Did you know when applying to the Naval Academy as a minority you are allowed to have up to .3 lower on your GPA and like 200 points off your sat as minimum standards. This is to produce not only our fighting men and women but officer corp? You know the people who hold the vast majority of responsibility for our billions of dollars worth of equipment and more importantly our soldiers lives.

Yes, what is your ******* point? That the policy is dumb? Cool, I get it. I agree. Can you not be a child?

Did you know that my entire student government loves to spend its time trying to get "Ethnic Studies" as a new major, even though my uni has no more money left? And they are willing for money to be taken elsewhere (AKA taken from other majors) just as long as we can say we have this ******* major? It is the most backwards thing I think we could be doing right now in regard to how we spend our time. Yet, I don't sit there and say I hate all you people. And I hate this policy and the student government itself.

Christ, is it any wonder why no one in America wants to talk about issues anymore?

[Strike For The South]

Is AA past it's usefullness? Probably

But to say that Whites have not had a clear advantage over minority groups in this country is disingenous at best. Their is a reason these policies are there

And yea I know you grew up farming :daisy: and the black kid next door got a BMW for his birthday

But that's not what the statistics speak to

And yea I know when you try to enginier a society it doesn't work

Kind of like we enginired a permanent underclass for ~300 years

[Major Robert Dump]

I disagree.

Previous such decisions were based on the ideas (although retarded ideas they are) of the "value" of diversity in the classroom and the propensity for non-asian minorities to possibly be discriminated against, therefore we must discriminatee against whitey and asiany to prevent possible discrimination against the others. At lease those cases were arguable

This precedent they speak of in regards to limiting the political process fo minorities was (although I still disagree) at least clear in terms of the argument being made. This decision was based in part on the skewed number of voters who voted for and against the measure, which was divided sharply by race. That apparently proved enough to warrant whitey trying to interfere with minority admission into universities, which in turn apparently interferes with minority participation in political matters, even though the last I checked admissions into universities were not done by voters or politics but by a committee.

furthermore, such an argument would imply that all minorites with college actively participate in politics, which is no more true or untrue of college educated people of any race.

This decision will be overturned if appealed, and it is an example of activist judges defying not only common sense, but also a legal, binding vote. The majority may not always be right, but that does not mean that they are always wrong, either.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not going to argue for or against AA; I know some people have used to it to their benefit, and others have abused it-- However this is the same with social security, and welfare programs. Michigan is a state where I see little need for AA anyways.

[Centurion1]

Yes, what is your ******* point? That the policy is dumb? Cool, I get it. I agree. Can you not be a child?

Did you know that my entire student government loves to spend its time trying to get "Ethnic Studies" as a new major, even though my uni has no more money left? And they are willing for money to be taken elsewhere (AKA taken from other majors) just as long as we can say we have this ******* major? It is the most backwards thing I think we could be doing right now in regard to how we spend our time. Yet, I don't sit there and say I hate all you people. And I hate this policy and the student government itself.

Christ, is it any wonder why no one in America wants to talk about issues anymore?

Wow you need to chill out bro. I don't even know how to respond to this sentence because every point I think you are trying to raise is absolutely nonsensical. What is your point from this post? To annoy me, to illustrate that there are always things that people dislike but you can't change, you had a bad day, your tampon is irritating you? If it is that everybody has things that they dislike then fine that also gives me the right to voice my opinion regarding it. If i choose to use such a descriptor for how I feel as hate well then damn that's my flipping right. I am perfectly willing to discuss the issue to the problem but I don't see you raising any points whatsoever.

I dislike the very notion of Affirmative action; i believe it was fostered with a noble goal but a stupid execution. You know what I believe would be a better idea, affirmative action on an economics scale. There are poor whites too and they are essentially receiving a negative compared to a poor black child or latino. Hell there are poor asians too. Why dont they have benefit programs aimed at economic status rather than race.

Perfect example: My roomate is african american he is a pre med major. His father is a surgeon at Yale Hospital. His mother is a community college professor. His grandmother has a phd and is a professor as well. But he gets the likely benefits of affirmative action. Then on campus he is allowed to join a group that is directly for low income tech majors. This group pays for quite a bit but is essentially closed to white students. Because it is targeted almost entirely on minorities. My roomate said there was one white girl in the entire group on campus out of several hundred.

Obviously I wish for all the ethnic groups to acheive equal status and levels of education but I would prefer that it be done across the board and not just for certain groups.

[Centurion1]

I'm not going to argue for or against AA; I know some people have used to it to their benefit, and others have abused it-- However this is the same with social security, and welfare programs. Michigan is a state where I see little need for AA anyways.

Detroit, Flint? The majority of the rust belt?

There is plenty of african american poverty in michigan actually

[Strike For The South]

Perfect example: My roomate is african american he is a pre med major. His father is a surgeon at Yale Hospital. His mother is a community college professor. His grandmother has a phd and is a professor as well. But he gets the likely benefits of affirmative action. Then on campus he is allowed to join a group that is directly for low income tech majors. This group pays for quite a bit but is essentially closed to white students. Because it is targeted almost entirely on minorities. My roomate said there was one white girl in the entire group on campus out of several hundred.
.


And yea I know you grew up farming :daisy: and the black kid next door got a BMW for his birthday


And people get economic hardships all the time

Also, I can post The demographics of higher education but why go through that dog and pony show when we all know the answer

The real kicker is for profit college

It's almost sad really

[Fisherking]

I favor affirmative action.

But on economic ground and not racial. After all it is illegal to discriminate based on race...isn’t it?

[Strike For The South]

I favor affirmative action.

But on economic ground and not racial. After all it is illegal to discriminate based on race...isn’t it?

For the 2nd time and this time it may stick

They already do that

IDK 300 years of chattel slavery + another 100 of draconian social laws may require extreme measures

But yea I'm sure the black kid from the delta gets a fair shake when 1960 oxford MS looks over his transcript

Remember kids their are reasons things are done, even if they conflict with your tottaly awesome way of thinkning where the government is evil and always holds man back

[Centurion1]

For the 2nd time and this time it may stick

They already do that

IDK 300 years of chattel slavery + another 100 of draconian social laws may require extreme measures

But yea I'm sure the black kid from the delta gets a fair shake when 1960 oxford MS looks over his transcript

Remember kids their are reasons things are done

At this point people are happy to snag african americans or latinos regardless of aa. Having a high minority population is desirable for presenting a diverse college atmosphere. Doing AA type practices based off of economic well being is much more desirable. Your argument doesn't even make sense your just saying blacks were slaves and discriminate din our histories past and still would be without AA with which I strongly disagree. And tbh I do not blame for profit colleges for all this.

[Samurai Waki]

Detroit, Flint? The majority of the rust belt?

There is plenty of african american poverty in michigan actually

There is just quite a bit of poverty in general in Michigan. ;)

[Strike For The South]

At this point people are happy to snag african americans or latinos regardless of aa. Having a high minority population is desirable for presenting a diverse college atmosphere. Doing AA type practices based off of economic well being is much more desirable. Your argument doesn't even make sense your just saying blacks were slaves and discriminate din our histories past and still would be without AA with which I strongly disagree. And tbh I do not blame for profit colleges for all this.

Wow, that is what you took from my post?

I hate having to spell things out so I'm going to ask you to read it again

[Centurion1]

and that they still dont get proper treatment? is that your point?

cause its sort of hard to pick up in one liners.

[HoreTore]

Just goes to show - Affirmative Action is basically illegal in Europe by treaty, the ECHR would eat this decision for breakfast.

Ah, so that is why we have plenty of similar laws then? Like the Sami having reserved spots at universities in the north.

[Ice]

Legal precedent is B.S.? They followed the example of two SCOTUS rulings that were related to the situation. The two person majority thought this case was similar enough for precedent to be applied and the single person minority thought it didn't. What a bunch of activist liberals!

Thanks for explaining it so well. Mind going into depth more there and not turning this into a political pissing match? K thanks.


I disagree.

Previous such decisions were based on the ideas (although retarded ideas they are) of the "value" of diversity in the classroom and the propensity for non-asian minorities to possibly be discriminated against, therefore we must discriminatee against whitey and asiany to prevent possible discrimination against the others. At lease those cases were arguable

This precedent they speak of in regards to limiting the political process fo minorities was (although I still disagree) at least clear in terms of the argument being made. This decision was based in part on the skewed number of voters who voted for and against the measure, which was divided sharply by race. That apparently proved enough to warrant whitey trying to interfere with minority admission into universities, which in turn apparently interferes with minority participation in political matters, even though the last I checked admissions into universities were not done by voters or politics but by a committee.

furthermore, such an argument would imply that all minorites with college actively participate in politics, which is no more true or untrue of college educated people of any race.

This decision will be overturned if appealed, and it is an example of activist judges defying not only common sense, but also a legal, binding vote. The majority may not always be right, but that does not mean that they are always wrong, either.

Thanks. They had an article in the Detroit Free Press about how the court incorrectly applied past SCOTUS rulings to fit their agenda for this issue.

[CountArach]

Can we please keep the debate civil and move away from personal attacks?

[Skullheadhq]

You should chill bro. It's one thing to think it is a bad policy, but hating it is just dumb. Bad policies are not evil policies. Some one at some point it was a good idea to try and help blacks get into college since they were repressed for decades and decades.

Current generation doesn't have to suffer for the 'wrongs' of their ancestor. They can in no way be held responsible for what their grandparents did 60 years ago and should never have to apologise or be punished for it, that is plain wrong. Here in the Netherlands we call affirmative action 'positive' discriminiation, so that you have the best papers for an important job if you're an handicapped, female, islamic negro. There is nothing positive about positive discrimination. Happy the current government abolished it.

[CountArach]

Current generation doesn't have to suffer for the 'wrongs' of their ancestor. They can in no way be held responsible for what their grandparents did 60 years ago and should never have to apologise o be punished for it, that is plain wrong.
I've heard this argument before but to me it is far more important that if an institution is responsible for something (repression of coloured people for instance) then that institution bears the responsibility for fixing it, regardless of if the same people who were in power are there or not.

[Skullheadhq]

I've heard this argument before but to me it is far more important that if an institution is responsible for something (repression of coloured people for instance) then that institution bears the responsibility for fixing it, regardless of if the same people who were in power are there or not.

Even if that means punishing innocents and compensating those who were done no harm?

[Don Corleone]

Wow, that is what you took from my post?

I hate having to spell things out so I'm going to ask you to read it again

To be perfectly honest, I took a similar reading on my first purview. On re-reading it, the best interpretation I can afford you is that "if you make affirmative action laws stiff enough, then institutions with a history of discrimination will keep their ass in line to keep yet further Affirmative Action from being brought down upon them". Is that what you were going for?

I actually believe in affirmative action based on economic need. That is not what gets practiced in reality, and that is specifically what the whole Michigan case is about. It was specifically about allowing or disallowing quotas based solely on race, not on need.

Common sense tells you this is true. How many affirmative action programs for Chinese nationals do you see going on? They're dirt poor when they literally 'get off the boat'. Do you see Universities throwing affirmative action programs at them? Nope. And the reason why? For the real reason we do affirmative action in the first place... Asians don't vote as a block, Latinos and African-Americans do.

[Strike For The South]

Meh probably true but in the same vein AA was started for poor blacks right in the 60s when they couldn't get a fair shake and the statistics still speak to the fact Latinos and blacks are underepresented where as asains and whites are overepresented

Now it's been 50 years and you can't hope to enginier a society ad naueseum but I'm just pointing out their is a reason things are the way they are.

When federal troops have to escort you to high school some extreme measures are worth taking

Oxford MS is the home of the University of Mississippi

[Don Corleone]

Meh probably true but in the same vein AA was started for poor blacks right in the 60s when they couldn't get a fair shake and the statistics still speak to the fact Latinos and blacks are underepresented where as asains and whites are overepresented

Now it's been 50 years and you can't hope to enginier a society ad naueseum but I'm just pointing out their is a reason things are the way they are.

When federal troops have to escort you to high school some extreme measures are worth taking

Oxford MS is the home of the University of Mississippi

I got the reference to Oxford. My point would be... while you're working hard to advocate for Affirmative Action as a remedy to slavery and segregration/Jim-Crow; don't forget to include a heavy tax on the Italians, particularly the Romans, for all the mayhem they caused back in the day too. How many innocent Celtic, Germanic and other peoples were enslaved and treated as second class citizens in a Republic that held them back?

What's that you say... we've moved on from that? Exactly...

Edit: I just reread your reply here and I missed your key choice words: "Underrepresented" and "overrepresented". May I ask you exactly how you define these terms?

I'm assuming you mean that if 10% of the general population is black, then therefore 10% of the university population must also be black, and no more than 10% of the prison population can ever be black.... i.e. the conventional definition of 'overrepresentation" and 'underrepresentation'. Am I correct in this?

[Skullheadhq]

asains and whites are overepresented

Since lots of Asians are on universities, maybe it isn't racism that's causing the negroe/latino underreprisentation but ther own skills/will to learn. How else can one explain why Asians are so well represented in universities? So, no need for Affirmative Action here.

[Vladimir]

Since lots of Asians are on universities, maybe it isn't racism that's causing the negroe/latino underreprisentation but ther own skills/will to learn. How else can one explain why Asians are so well represented in universities? So, no need for Affirmative Action here.

Culture. We're a culturally segregated country. For example: Successful black people are still looked down upon by many of their peers. The majority of the problem is with the people themselves.

[Strike For The South]

I got the reference to Oxford. My point would be... while you're working hard to advocate for Affirmative Action as a remedy to slavery and segregration/Jim-Crow; don't forget to include a heavy tax on the Italians, particularly the Romans, for all the mayhem they caused back in the day too. How many innocent Celtic, Germanic and other peoples were enslaved and treated as second class citizens in a Republic that held them back?

There is a quite difference Don
We have had the same nation state and set of laws since 1787. Modern day Italy has nothing to do with the Romans. Modern day America has allot to do with chattel slavery and Jim Crow. Even more so when these policies were enacted. My posts here are simply pointing that out. The whole thread has been a circle jerk of the en vouge "trampled on white man" stereotype that people like to perpetuate. If it's not the black kid in the application process, it's the Indian kid once he gets into school, and then the woman when he applys for a job :rollseyes:

These policies have outlived there usefullness but they served a very important purpose at one point. I would simply point that out.


I'm assuming you mean that if 10% of the general population is black, then therefore 10% of the university population must also be black, and no more than 10% of the prison population can ever be black.... i.e. the conventional definition of 'overrepresentation" and 'underrepresentation'. Am I correct in this?


Let's replace that with skewed absolutely in one direction. I'm well aware of the prison population and a crime is a crime. Please don't confuse the 2 but in a state like Texas where the minorty population is around 50% There is no reason minorty representation in 4 year unis should be around 20% which includes the Chinese and Indian students which, suffice to say isn't a big part of the population

Now what are the reasons for this

Lack of money, Lack of education, and a mostly negative portryal in the medias

Of course I would say the institutionalized white power structure had a fair bit to do with all 3 and I feel it's disingenous to our fellow countrymen to step on their throats and not at least try to do something


What's that you say... we've moved on from that? Exactly...

Edit: I just reread your reply here and I missed your key choice words: "Underrepresented" and "overrepresented". May I ask you exactly how you define these terms?

I'm assuming you mean that if 10% of the general population is black, then therefore 10% of the university population must also be black, and no more than 10% of the prison population can ever be black.... i.e. the conventional definition of 'overrepresentation" and 'underrepresentation'. Am I correct in this?[/QUOTE]

[Don Corleone]

I raise the prison issue, because that's invariably the second stop on the "the percentages prove it's a conspiracy" train. I'm happy to hear that your views on racial quotas in education do not extend into the penal system, but I see your two sets of views as incongruous. If racism today is keeping blacks out of college, how is it not also putting them into prison?

50% of the population of Texas is not minorities, but even if it were, how many of that minority population speaks English fluently? How many are even here as permanent residents for that matter? It's a massive conspiracy by Whitey because a migrant worker isn't studying nuclear physics at Texas A&M (where granted, he would invariably improve the quality of post-grad research *nudge*)....

I do not disagree with you that we have had a history in this country of racism. But Hell's bells Strike, if you weren't an anglo-saxon protestant, you were dog-poop... my 3rd generation AMERICAN born grandfather was shot by the klan (he lived) on Newbury Street in downtown Boston... for being a Taig!!!! Where that translates to me being part of the vast white conspiracy to keep the black-man down, I have no idea. I have black friends and colleagues. To paraphrase Miles Davis, their daddie's aren't broke and they weren't suffering.

Is there predjudism? Sure! Is there a historical context as to why black people appear in higher proportions at the lower ends of the economic spectrum? Of course. But given where we've come in the past 60 years, I don't see how AA, based strictly on racial quotas, will do anything to make the ghettoes more white and the country clubs more black. Sloth and initiative, respectively, will do that in ways that the most well intentioned but wrongheaded quota systems ever could.

[Strike For The South]

I raise the prison issue, because that's invariably the second stop on the "the percentages prove it's a conspiracy" train. I'm happy to hear that your views on racial quotas in education do not extend into the penal system, but I see your two sets of views as incongruous. If racism today is keeping blacks out of college, how is it not also putting them into prison?Prison is the end result of lack of education and poverty. Lowering your standards by .2 points on a GPA and letting a rapist walk due to quotas are not even in the same ethical ballpark.


50% of the population of Texas is not minorities, but even if it were, how many of that minority population speaks English fluently? How many are even here as permanent residents for that matter? It's a massive conspiracy by Whitey because a migrant worker isn't studying nuclear physics at Texas A&M (where granted, he would invariably improve the quality of post-grad research *nudge*)....

You're right it's 54.7% http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html Forgien born people (All of them) are 15%. I never said it's a massive conspiracy, you are taking my arguement to nth extreme. It is a massive gap


I do not disagree with you that we have had a history in this country of racism. But Hell's bells Strike, if you weren't an anglo-saxon protestant, you were dog-poop... my 3rd generation AMERICAN born grandfather was shot by the klan (he lived) on Newbury Street in downtown Boston... for being a Taig!!!! Where that translates to me being part of the vast white conspiracy to keep the black-man down, I have no idea. I have black friends and colleagues. To paraphrase Miles Davis, their daddie's weren't broke and they weren't suffering.


Well we can't all be perfect....And South Boston is a great example of how the same factors that have "kept the black man down" can happen to white people just the same. Once again, I'm fully aware there are rich black people and poor white people but in a country of 300,000,000 anecdotal aint worth a cowpie. And even the prejudce the Irish and various other brands of swarthy catholics faced doesn't come close to what the visible minorities did.

If you're Irish or Polish it isn't that hard to play the stuff anglo. It's allot harder to do that when your black


Is there predjudism? Sure! Is there a historical context as to why black people appear in higher proportions at the lower ends of the economic spectrum? Of course. But given where we've come in the past 60 years, I don't see how AA, based strictly on racial quotas, will do anything to make the ghettoes more white and the country clubs more black. Sloth and initiative, respectively, will do that in ways that the most well intentioned but wrongheaded quota systems ever could.

See it's not about country clubs, or ghettos, or even white guilt. It's about the risk of creating a permanent underclass which back in the 60s was a real possibilty

[Don Corleone]

See it's not about country clubs, or ghettos, or even white guilt. It's about the risk of creating a permanent underclass which back in the 60s was a real possibilty

Point of information.... I highlight your quote above in particular, because I want to make certain we're not arguing past each other.

I am arguing that racial quotas for universities make no sense in 2011 (though they may well have in 1965). I am keeping my statements constrained to the present day.

I thought you were arguing in defense of quotas in the present day. If you're defending their presence in recent history, that's another whole matter and one I'm not sure I want to stand against.

[Strike For The South]

Point of information.... I highlight your quote above in particular, because I want to make certain we're not arguing past each other.

I am arguing that racial quotas for universities make no sense in 2011 (though they may well have in 1965). I am keeping my statements constrained to the present day.

I thought you were arguing in defense of quotas in the present day. If you're defending their presence in recent history, that's another whole matter and one I'm not sure I want to stand against.

I agree that they have no place in 2011. You can't endlessly hope to enginer a society in such a way

I was miffed by the attitude in this thread So I came in swinging

Welcome back by the way, Between you and Adrian this has been a banner week

[Don Corleone]

Oh I've been in and around more than you may realize, but having kids tends to slow you down a few steps. But thank you for the welcome. Always good to see you (and Adrian, and everyone else for that matter).

[Lemur]

Yay for the return of Don and Adrian. The sun is a little brighter, the air a little fresher. Me so happy.

On topic: I think all of this illustrates the problem with affirmative action, which is that it should have had a set period after which it expired. I guess that might have been thinking a little too far forward back in the sixties, but still, nobody in their right mind would want to keep affirmative action quotas indefinitely, however justified they were at the time of enactment.

[PanzerJaeger]

On topic: I think all of this illustrates the problem with affirmative action, which is that it should have had a set period after which it expired. I guess that might have been thinking a little too far forward back in the sixties, but still, nobody in their right mind would want to keep affirmative action quotas indefinitely, however justified they were at the time of enactment.

Yes - not that AA was ever justified.

[Strike For The South]

Yes - not that AA was ever justified.

Pray tell my good man

[PanzerJaeger]

Pray tell my good man

Basing law on racial distinctions is illogical and corrosive in a society that presumes racial equality. It is also unconstitutional.

[Strike For The South]

Basing law on racial distinctions is illogical and corrosive in a society that presumes racial equality. It is also unconstitutional.

So The United States was unconstitutional from 1776-present?

I absolutely love absolutes

I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic


I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic and then use the constitution as some sort of progessive black ball which precludes rational discussion about the issue

[Centurion1]

So The United States was unconstitutional from 1776-present?

I absolutely love absolutes

I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic


I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic and then use the constitution as some sort of progessive black ball which precludes rational discussion about the issue

Do you think saying our forefathers were unconstitutional and wrong is anathema? Yes they were unconstitutional to allow slavery, to allow Jim Crow laws, etc. They were guided by the nature of their times and wrong headed principle yes but wrong nonetheless.

[Strike For The South]

Also the founding fathers didn't allow Jim Crow, they allowed slavery. And yes the first thing anyone ever does is throw out the "nature of their times" arguement I'm bloody well aware they were men of their times.

To assume AA would correct all ills is foolhardy, to keep it running idefinite is unfair (This is the 4th or 5th time I have said this) However, it's here for a reason and it appears the majority of my fellows fail to understand why that is.

[PanzerJaeger]

So The United States was unconstitutional from 1776-present?

No, from 1868-present.


I absolutely love absolutes

I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic


I absolutely love absolutes which use only the most black and white logic and then use the constitution as some sort of progessive black ball which precludes rational discussion about the issue

I do not understand. :(

[Strike For The South]

No, from 1868-present.

So Jim Crow is ok? A system that flies in the face of what equal really means? No doubt your reply will be some half baked contrian peice based on the Xth amendment

But hey Rand Paul needs friends



I do not understand. :(


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yDAFd_PFkA

[PanzerJaeger]

So Jim Crow is ok?

I believe you'll find that Jim Crow laws were eventually found to be unconstitutional, as AA laws soon will (are).

Also, I find it slightly amusing that you of all people are defending a set of mandates that deem blacks and latinos (although, let's be real - it's all about blacks) inherently inferior to whites. It seems contrary to everything you stand for.

[Strike For The South]

I believe you'll find that Jim Crow laws were eventually found to be unconstitutional, as AA laws soon will (are).

Not in 1868


Also, I find it slightly amusing that you of all people are defending a set of mandates that deem blacks and latinos (although, let's be real - it's all about blacks) inherently inferior to whites. It seems contrary to everything you stand for.

I find it really Amusing you've missed the point entierly and ended up in left field.

It's not about the fact they are inherently inferior. I never stated it or belive it

300 years of chattel slavery+100 years of the Jim Crow inherently rejects any sort of real learning. So a black kid with 3.1 GPA has had to overcome allot more than a white kid with a 3.4. Don't be disingenous. I've already said it's outlived its usefullness


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3yJomUhs0g

[PanzerJaeger]

Not in 1868

I do not understand. :(




I find it really Amusing you've missed the point entierly and ended up in left field.

It's not about the fact they are inherently inferior. I never stated it or belive it

300 years of chattel slavery+100 years of the Jim Crow inherently rejects any sort of real learning. So a black kid with 3.1 GPA has had to overcome allot more than a white kid with a 3.4. Don't be disingenous. I've already said it's outlived its usefullness



That doesn't compute. What does chattel slavery have to do with black academic achievement in the 60's or today? The problem with black education during the 60's was that in many parts of the country it was under-resourced. The proper solution was the even the playing field by ensuring that educational resources were not distributed based on race. This was achieved through the courts but was then taken further based on some very shaky (and unconstitutional ~;)) legal arguments that managed to make it through the court system based on the social sensitivities of the time - much like the black codes.

By accepting that 3.1 GPA black kid over the 3.4 white one, the university is really saying "he's pretty smart for a black kid".

[Centurion1]

Also the founding fathers didn't allow Jim Crow, they allowed slavery. And yes the first thing anyone ever does is throw out the "nature of their times" arguement I'm bloody well aware they were men of their times.

To assume AA would correct all ills is foolhardy, to keep it running idefinite is unfair (This is the 4th or 5th time I have said this) However, it's here for a reason and it appears the majority of my fellows fail to understand why that is.

I am going to go by this bit by bit. I did not say founding fathers I said forefathers. Anyone of a prior generation is a forefather. I was not referring to the founding fathers as known in America. Second if you properly analyze the syntax of the sentence you will see that i said, "they were unconstitutional to allow slavery, to allow jim crow etc." The comma and the restated to allow demonstrate they are seperate entities not one thing. and since at least one of our forefathers instituted and allowed both of those policies to continue..... Also I have no idea what your point is regarding the "nature of their times" argument as you state it. What did i say once again. I stated, "They were guided by the nature of their times and wrong headed principle yes but wrong nonetheless." The key point being "wrong nonetheless"

The reason for AA is stupid attempted social engineering and more importantly the immense white guilt so many people absurdly have over things like this. AA corrects no ills, is discriminatory in and of itself, is unfair to other young american students and has no place in a racially tolerant and accepting culture. What they should have done is make an AA program based off of financial statistics rather than the color of your skin. Because I am not a racist I am happy whenever a student of any color or ethnicity becomes educated be they white black or flipping ewoks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am taking a 7 hour drive tomorrow to a place where I wont have internet. I hope this thread doesn't die by sunday when I come back.

[PanzerJaeger]

What they should have done is make an AA program based off of financial statistics rather than the color of your skin.

I disagree. You're still endorsing two (or more) different standards.

If you must, throw scholarships at the unwashed, but don't create two different types of people: the real smart people and the poor smart people.

[Strike For The South]

I do not understand. :
Jim Crow was unconstitutional and it stood for 75 years So it's not 1868 to present. The earliest date you can possible use is 64.





That doesn't compute. What does chattel slavery have to do with black academic achievement in the 60's or today? The problem with black education during the 60's was that in many parts of the country it was under-resourced. The proper solution was the even the playing field by ensuring that educational resources were not distributed based on race. This was achieved through the courts but was then taken further based on some very shaky (and unconstitutional ~;)) legal arguments that managed to make it through the court system based on the social sensitivities of the time - much like the black codes.

It has to do with an enviorment that is education starved and a society that generally considers you second class. These are very real and powerful concepts, I will admit they may be more intangiable than I would like but thats why I posted the Dr.Suess video. Black public schools in the south were an absolute and utter travesty to even call them schools is an insult to education.


By accepting that 3.1 GPA black kid over the 3.4 white one, the university is really saying "he's pretty smart for a black kid".

No, If the white kids grandfather had been a slave and his fater had been a sharecropper the situation would probably be reversed.

[Centurion1]

No, If the white kids grandfather had been a slave and his fater had been a sharecropper the situation would probably be reversed.

This sentence is meaningless dribble and evidence of your immense white guilt. Chances are that 3.1 gpa black kid comes from a middle class family or above and it a completely irrelevant thought. How about the 3.4 gpa appalachian poverty stricken white over the 3.1 gpa upper middle class black kid who gets in on AA? Is that okay because yah know that stinking white kids great great grandparents weren't Slaves yah know.

[Strike For The South]

This sentence is meaningless dribble and evidence of your immense white guilt. Chances are that 3.1 gpa black kid comes from a middle class family or above and it a completely irrelevant thought. How about the 3.4 gpa appalachian poverty stricken white over the 3.1 gpa upper middle class black kid who gets in on AA? Is that okay because yah know that stinking white kids great great grandparents weren't Slaves yah know.

I'm going to repeat myself for the 100th time

I do not think AA should be continued
I am well aware of rich black people and poor white people
I would simply like others to be aware of why AA is here and why it continues to be a contentious issue

Illegal,immoral, and unethical things were done to black Americans en masse. Is it so hard to see why the government would try to help them?

And I have no white guilt. I also dislike people whom throw around that term as if what happened is not important. 12% of our population was effectively marginlized until 1964. That's an issue

[Skullheadhq]

Look what James Watson, the guy who discovered DNA-structure, says. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)
I laughed.

[Fisherking]

Look what James Watson, the guy who discovered DNA-structure, says. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)
I laughed.

This is an old argument that goes back forever.

A lot that goes into intelligence is environmental and cultural.

When your main focus is putting food on the table you are not so interested in philosophy and higher intellectual pursuits.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Or rather, most people tend to accommodate the worldviews in which they grew up. And come to espouse them. For instance, it's often the mothers who push their daughters to go with full-tent-wear more so than their fathers.

[HoreTore]

Look what James Watson, the guy who discovered DNA-structure, says. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)
I laughed.

Yes, and a comparison between the last two american presidents would prove his theory. /sarcasm

On a more serious note, I see no reason why anyone should care about such complete nonsense.

[HoreTore]

This is an old argument that goes back forever.

A lot that goes into intelligence is environmental and cultural.

When your main focus is putting food on the table you are not so interested in philosophy and higher intellectual pursuits.

The average Norwegian IQ, based on IQ tests performed on conscripts(we all have to take them), has shown that the IQ in Norway has increased quite a few points since the war.

I find it quite unlikely that we have changed our race during the last 50 years.

[lars573]

Look what James Watson, the guy who discovered DNA-structure, says. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)
I laughed.
And Chris Rock (you know the black comedian) would somewhat agree with him. He also basis it on genetic factors. Due to selective breeding of the slaves. Where smarts were removed from the gene pool and physical traits emphasized.

[HoreTore]

Hm?

Surely, "the blacks" would be the ones living in africa, and not the few living in America, where almost everyone has at least some european ancestry...?

Anyway, most of the arguments for "the dumb blacks" come from Africa's economic and political stagnation. However, as 7 of the 10 economies with the highest growth rate are now African countries, I do believe we'll laugh even harder at this in the future.

[Centurion1]

right this is a discussion about aa. as a result we are talking about african americans i suppose though i would like to avoid this topic as it only results in angry people.

the slave breeding thing is sometimes touted as fact. it would help to explain why seemingly most american sports are african american dominated. but it is not accurate they weren't bred that actively.

[HoreTore]

But considering African Americans very diverse ancestry, surely you must agree that biological/genetic explanations for their (supposed) behaviour becomes ridiculous very quickly?

And when discussing genetic factors, one must make it clear whether one is talking about african americans or africans, as the two don't really have that much in common biologically anymore. Africans consist of a myriad of groups who haven't seen very much interaction with each other until very recently, while african americans are a mix of all those groups along with quite a lot of european and native american mixed in.

[Centurion1]

But considering African Americans very diverse ancestry, surely you must agree that biological/genetic explanations for their (supposed) behaviour becomes ridiculous very quickly?

And when discussing genetic factors, one must make it clear whether one is talking about african americans or africans, as the two don't really have that much in common biologically anymore. Africans consist of a myriad of groups who haven't seen very much interaction with each other until very recently, while african americans are a mix of all those groups along with quite a lot of european and native american mixed in.

all of which is why I said such a discussion is futile and likely to result in anger. I personally do not know what I think of gentic issues like this and need some time to develop an actual position. I believe most people feel the same way because of the very conflicting opinions and evidence on these sorts of things.

Also yes about africans and african americans being radically different. For example, the vast majority of african americans are far far lighter in skin tone that "true" africans

[Strike For The South]

Also yes about africans and african americans being radically different. For example, the vast majority of african americans are far far lighter in skin tone that "true" africans

O rly?

[Centurion1]

O rly?

rly. to an extent of course as not all african americans with lineages tracing back to slavery are lighter and "black" africans come in many different varieties but on a whole african americans have quite a bit more european blood on average and often reflect that. Not to mention the common practice in alot of places where being paler was a status symbol and pale people often got with each other.

[Strike For The South]

rly. to an extent of course as not all african americans with lineages tracing back to slavery are lighter and "black" africans come in many different varieties but on a whole african americans have quite a bit more european blood on average and often reflect that. Not to mention the common practice in alot of places where being paler was a status symbol and pale people often got with each other.

Nope.

Simply b/c one person has 15% "European" blood compared to 5% "European" blood does not mean the smaller % will be darker.

I would also love to see some actual reputable source that paler black people got with each other

But hey It's my bugaboo, demanding proof

[Centurion1]

its called miscegenation look it up. I said in most cases. And yes mr. 15% will on average be lighter than mr. 5% and definitely lighter than mr. 0%

this is laughably annoying of you to go from thread to thread disputing commonly known and accepted historical facts with me.

http://scholar.library.miami.edu/emancipation/culture4.htm

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2011/03/26/african-americans-still-victims-of-colorism/

[Strike For The South]

Miscegnation means nothing more than race mixing. It's an archaic term used by people who still use skin color for labeling purposes. It has nothing to do with your % theory which btw you are about 120 years late on.

I was unaware that Jamaica was part of the USA. Even a passing glance at history will show you that the United States did not adopt the same color shading nuances that places like Brazil and the Caribean did. We used the one drop rule AND WE LIKED IT.

There is an interesting dichotomy within black culture about the "lightness" of ones skin but we aren't quite there yet

You are welcome to try again

[Centurion1]

i apologize about the use of the word miscegenation a professor used it and after googling it appears it can be potentially insulting.

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about any african who was forcibly removed from their homes and enslaved. It all applies equally well whether they were enslaved in america of jamaica. Even a passing glance most certainly does tell me that the term mulatto was common english in america. Furthermore % of ethnicity does affect the nature of your skin tone among other things. Biracial children most certainly are lighter than their "full" parent. And if that child marries black their children will likely be dark. They are also not likely to pop out ginger haired and pasty white. I also forgot where you understood every single nuance of African american life in previous generations. am i saying that african americans prefer lighter skin toned people now? No, i am saying that they did 200 years ago.

Biracial marriage does not necessarily genetically result in lighter or darker skin than before but it very well can and is certainly a factor.

[Strike For The South]

i apologize about the use of the word miscegenation a professor used it and after googling it appears it can be potentially insulting.
It's not about insulting, it's about the word not meaning anything close to what you said it did. The fact its archaic and meaningless in the 21st century is just a funny side story.


I'm sorry I thought we were talking about any african who was forcibly removed from their homes and enslaved. It all applies equally well whether they were enslaved in america of jamaica.
No it doesn't, every plantation society in the Americas was different. You know that. Don't be willfully ignorant just to argue with me.

Even a passing glance most certainly does tell me that the term mulatto was common english in america.
Certainly it was a common word but to assume blacks married "light" to advance there social position is to assume they had any social position to begin with


Furthermore % of ethnicity does affect the nature of your skin tone among other things. Biracial children most certainly are lighter than their "full" parent. And if that child marries black their children will likely be dark. They are also not likely to pop out ginger haired and pasty white.
Sure but that also doesn't mean there is a marked difference in someone whom identifies as "black" in the US and your run of the mill sub sarhahan Africa. I think we have to decide how are to define "black" see how sticky this race thing becomes? You seem to be included biracials who probably wouldn't self identify as black


I also forgot where you understood every single nuance of African american life in previous generations. am i saying that african americans prefer lighter skin toned people now? No, i am saying that they did 200 years ago. I have been known, from time to time, to keep it real. That is also not what I said. But thanks for the words, they tasted good

[Centurion1]

It's not about insulting, it's about the word not meaning anything close to what you said it did. The fact its archaic and meaningless in the 21st century is just a funny side story.

.
No it doesn't, every plantation society in the Americas was different. You know that. Don't be willfully ignorant just to argue with me.

Certainly it was a common word but to assume blacks married "light" to advance there social position is to assume they had any social position to begin with


Sure but that also doesn't mean there is a marked difference in someone whom identifies as "black" in the US and your run of the mill sub sarhahan Africa. I think we have to decide how are to define "black" see how sticky this race thing becomes? You seem to be included biracials who probably wouldn't self identify as black

I have been known, from time to time, to keep it real. That is also not what I said. But thanks for the words, they tasted good

Yes it does.

also your not right. Biracials were often treated better. Lighter african americans were known to be house slaves. Darker slaves were reduced to field toil. Being a house slave was preferable. Slaves if given the option (often they weren't) would try to marry into house slaves.

also yes of course not all cases is this true but have 20% european heritge in you will certainly have much more higher probability of having lighter skin tone.

Your comment regarding identifying the term "black" and who these people are is very valid. Please do so. Actually I would say most half white half black people would identify as black. I don't know why but i dont really care either it doesnt matter to me. But if you wanted to do percentages I bet that you would find more maring on sheets that they are black then marking white. So your statement of it being more likely for a biracial individual to say they are white is misplaced.

[Strike For The South]

Yes it does.

Yes it does what?


also your not right. Biracials were often treated better. Lighter african americans were known to be house slaves. Darker slaves were reduced to field toil. Being a house slave was preferable. Slaves if given the option (often they weren't) would try to marry into house slaves.
LOL, A house slave was a MASSIVE luxury reserved for very large and well off plantations, and the #1 pre req was being a woman, not mocha skin tone. You seem to have an honest lack of understanding of Plantation life in the south.


also yes of course not all cases is this true but have 20% european heritge in you will certainly have much more higher probability of having lighter skin tone.


Perhaps but this statement is nothing more than semantics and suppisition. Games which I don't care for.


Your comment regarding identifying the term "black" and who these people are is very valid. Please do so. Actually I would say most half white half black people would identify as black. I don't know why but i dont really care either it doesnt matter to me. But if you wanted to do percentages I bet that you would find more maring on sheets that they are black then marking white. So your statement of it being more likely for a biracial individual to say they are white is misplaced.

Again this is a just an anecdote. It's at this point I'll tell you there are more than two boxes on the US census form which is why I specficaly mentioned bi-racial. It's also at this point where I whip my fancy census data to further prove my point but I'll let you look it up. I think you'll get a kick out of it,

[Centurion1]

Yes it does what?


LOL, A house slave was a MASSIVE luxury reserved for very large and well off plantations, and the #1 pre req was being a woman, not mocha skin tone. You seem to have an honest lack of understanding of Plantation life in the south.


Perhaps but this statement is nothing more than semantics and suppisition. Games which I don't care for.



Again this is a just an anecdote. It's at this point I'll tell you there are more than two boxes on the US census form which is why I specficaly mentioned bi-racial. It's also at this point where I whip my fancy census data to further prove my point but I'll let you look it up. I think you'll get a kick out of it,

I know i mark mixed myself. But i thought we were going to deal with people who deal with absolutes and forget about those silly people who actually mark what their ethnic heritage really is.

And you know what strike. Screw you man. I am the only one posting any sort of links. After these last two im done until hyou decide to actually use google and find some for yourself. You want to refute what i am saying please do so with actual tangible evidence not just poorly spelled internet effect words in caps.

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2011/03/26/african-americans-still-victims-of-colorism/

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/01/11/the-ugly-roots-of-the-light-skin-dark-skin-divide.html

[Strike For The South]

Well you started this thread talking about all blacks but then backdooring those with a non black parent in. The average amount of "European blood" a person whom self identifies as black is 7% (Or summit) not enough to sway his skin tone in any meaningful way.


I've read that Newsweek article and all it does is further prove that Newsweek is a peice of trash

I don't post links and the ones you post either contracdict you or aren't relavant.

Who is the real winner here?

The fact of the matter is, quick google searches will provide you no more actual knoweledge about a subject than a band aid will stop a stab wound from bleeding

[Banquo's Ghost]

This thread has strayed far enough from its roots and despite guidance, is back to insults. Enough.

:closed: