12-03-2002, 11:54 AM | #21 | |
White Dragon
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: York, UK.
Age: 41
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
Basically I agree with Thoran - it is a necessary step but not an end in itself - rather obviously. But I'm afraid I don't agree with you when you say that its not going to be needed for much longer. I think as long as we still have social discrimination going then we will need some form of "Affirmative Action". And that doesn't look to me like its going to end anytime soon. Don't get me wrong - things are getting better, they just aren't good enough yet.
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe |
|
12-03-2002, 12:12 PM | #22 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
A. Normal Constitutional Standard If the gov. wants to pass a law (any law), the constitutional test is that it is (1) RATIONALLY RELATED (a very low hurdle) to a (2) LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST (also a very low hurdle). Thus, so long as your law will somehow relate to your goal for passing the law, it passes constitutional muster. B. Heightened Constitutional Standard But, if you use a SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION (such as skin color or religious background) in your law, a higher standard applies - because we are "suspicious" when governments pass laws using such classifications. The constitutional standard then is that the law is (1) NARROWLY TAILORED (very high hurdle requiring great specificity) to a (2) COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST (also a very high hurdle, requiring a very important governmental goal). Now, in the Michigan case, the classification - race - is "suspect" because the Court has said so for over half a century. Thus, the higher standard, the second one ("B" above), applies. Now, when trying to justify your COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST portion of the test, it has already been upheld that "correcting a historical wrong" *is* a compelling government interest. This case is novel because MI did not use this justification, but rather relies solely on "diversity in education," a notion dating back to the first landmark affirmative action case, Bakke (the clerk who helped the Justices write this opinion was my Con Law prof, BTW). In Bakke, I think it was Justice Powell who opined that in some instances "diversity in education" would be a compelling governmental interest. This case will test that notion, perhaps, as MI has used only "diversity" and no other reason to justify its compelling governmental interest. Now, note that EVEN IF the Court determines "diversity" is compelling, the law will still be struck down if it is not NARROWLY TAILORED to accomplishing the goal of "diversity." Thus, as you can see, these "suspect class" type of cases (of which affirmative action and discrimination both use the same test) are very very difficult to succeed with. Oh, and also note that the Court may weasel out, as it often does. Here's how: the Court notes that if the law is not "narrowly tailored" then it will fail the test whether or not "diversity" is a compelling interest. Then, the Court may go on to find that in fact the law is not "narrowly tailored." In that instance, it will not even need to decide whether "diversity" is a compelling interest, so it may choose not to decide that issue (this happens when the justices really can't come to an agreement). Okay, lecture over. Remember your midterms next week. [ 12-03-2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
|
12-03-2002, 01:39 PM | #23 | ||
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: August 16, 2002
Location: Newcastle, England
Age: 45
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
This is not only insulting to black people ("Oh, you couldn't manage it on your own - we'll give you the place anyway because you didn't have many toys when you were a child"), but also works against disadvantaged white people. There are a great manby white people who grow up in poverty in bad neighbourhoods. However, because of affirmitive action, if this person went up against a black person in a selection process, the black person would automatically get more consideration. All affirmitive action does is engender resentment among ethnic groups, because people (rightfully) get annoyed at jobs and placements being given to less suitable candidates based on their skin colour. It also leads to a continuance of a dependance culture, where the minorities think they deserve places to be givenm to them, rather than having to earn them. Rather then smoothing out any differenceas between the ethnic groups, it continues to highlight them and make them an issue. Quote:
Homosexuals make up about 10% of the population if I remember right. I would expect a homosexual to be given *exactly* the same shot at *any* job as a straight person, and for them to be judged on their ability, not their sexual preference. omosexuals make up about 10% of the population, then I would expect to see about 10% of the workforce being homosexual. This is not the situation that quotas and legalised discrimination causes - I have heard of cases that some quotas have stated a company must have a 50% ethnic minority workforce, despite the fact the state has only 15% ethnic minority population. Is this fair? Is this giving everyone the fair playing field they deserve? Or is it making the judgement that all blacks/hispanics must be disadvantaged, and because they are inherently worse than white people, they must be pushed into jobs, rather than relying on their own ability? Affirmitive Action assumes people from ethnic minorities are inherently inferior and need help to get jobs that the majority have to rely on their ability to get. In this way, AA is actually more racist than the problem is is intended to solve. I am all for people getting help and consideration based on their backgrounds, but jobs and Uni placements should be based *solely* on ability. If you have SAt tests used to determine *ability*, then it is racist that an ethnic minority candidate has points added onto his score just because his skin is black, yellow, brown, pink or blue.
__________________
<br />[url]\"http://www.the-silver-river.com\" target=\"_blank\">Admin and Co-Owner of The Silver River!</a><br />[url]\"http://www.the-silver-river.com/Photo%20Album/Reeka.html\" target=\"_blank\">*SMNOOOOOOCH!*</a> You know who it\'s meant for <img border=\"0\" title=\"\" alt=\"[Wink]\" src=\"wink.gif\" /> |
||
12-03-2002, 02:03 PM | #24 | |
Ironworks Moderator
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Upstate NY USA
Posts: 19,737
|
Quote:
__________________
"Don't take life for granted." Animal (may he rest in peace) |
|
12-03-2002, 02:12 PM | #25 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I know that if you put a person up for a position via the Afirmative action route, and one who is not covered by afirmative action, that the person with afirmative action backing will automaticly be assumed to be the inferior candidate. Why? because they do not have to meet the same criteria. Their scores (the method for assessment) can be lower. so afirmative action also engenders a stereotyping too. And employers will not give the afirmative action person equal respect because it was not earned, it was apportioned by a government program.
Afirmative action just perpetuates the myth that minorities (other than asians) cannot succeed in the fair market place. Edit: I am basing this solely on what I have seen in the IT industry. I really don't know how any others work. [ 12-03-2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
12-03-2002, 02:22 PM | #26 | |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: August 30, 2001
Location: somewhere
Age: 54
Posts: 1,785
|
Quote:
Basically I agree with Thoran - it is a necessary step but not an end in itself - rather obviously. But I'm afraid I don't agree with you when you say that its not going to be needed for much longer. I think as long as we still have social discrimination going then we will need some form of "Affirmative Action". And that doesn't look to me like its going to end anytime soon. Don't get me wrong - things are getting better, they just aren't good enough yet.[/QUOTE]I understand about minorities generally getting less quality education, but where do you draw the line at what's discrimination? Using that logic, the wealthy are biased because they can afford the best education and have more resources for their childrens welfare. Does this make those from less wealthy families discriminated against? Do you allow the well to do no advantages? Isn't that discriminating against them? It's a blurry line!
__________________
Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss. |
|
12-03-2002, 02:29 PM | #27 | |
Ironworks Moderator
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Upstate NY USA
Posts: 19,737
|
Quote:
I always thought that everyone had an equal shot at things, til I started working at a University. Did you know we have 'targeted' funds that have higher stipends for minorities? The programs I work for have a large number of minorities applying but the kicker here is that most of them are foreign students and don't qualify. The targeted awards are for US citizens. And being an Asian American doesn't qualify you for these funds. Apparently Asian Americans (as a demographic) have no trouble winning scholarships and other financial aid (or so you have to believe since they aren't eligible for the 'target' monies.) What opened my eyes all the way was a faculty hire in the Spanish Department about 10 years ago. They had many qualified candidates but Affirmative Action told them they needed to 'diversify' the program so they had to hire the only black applicant. She turned out to be the most inept and personally odd faculty member they'd ever dealt with. I witnessed her bizarre paranoia the year they decided to let her go instead of granting tenure. She had not published ONE article or piece of scholarly writing in her 5+ yrs at the University but supposedly had a 'book' in progress. She was so worried her colleagues might 'steal' her book in progress, she hauled a luggage cart around with her (the manuscript was in a bag on the cart) so that nobody could take it from her office or home! More to the point, intellectually and administratively she was a nightmare. The department really had no choice but to let her go and in the end, she sued, claiming racism was responsible for her not being tenured. I can assure you, it was not the reason they let her go and in fact, 'diversity' was the reason she stayed past the first 3 yrs! Nobody in the program dared to say she wasn't pulling her weight for fear of being accused of racism! (edit: just wanted to note that several outside reviewers looked at her tenure case and read her 'manuscript'. We had a horrible time getting anyone to agree to do it, too. All but one (a friend of hers) came to the conclusion that her work was hardly satisfactory for a student, nevermind a PhD looking for tenure. The one who liked her work admitted that it would need 'extensive' re-working before it could hope to be published.) On the flip side, I personally was turned down for a job I was equally qualified for, in favor of a male candidate. Not only do I know this because I know the other guy and actually taught him as a Teaching Assistant, but I heard it from the lips of the hiring faculty member. He was discussing his 'issues' with hiring women with some of his colleagues one day. Seems he was of the opinion that unmarried women were a bother because they 'just go off looking for husbands or marry and leave' while married women were as much a pain because 'they get pregnant or their husbands get better jobs and they move'. He further indicated that in general a man was more entitled to the work as he 'has a family to support' and this one did. The ironic part of all this is that the guy they hired had to take leave of absences at least three times that I am personally aware of because he and his wife had 3 more kids after he was hired and his wife spoke no English. She insisted he stay home to help each time a child was born! So he was out for several months worth of time each year of his first 3 yrs at the job! Let me tell you, I didn't take half that much leave from my job during that time!! LOL I've heard the committees that do faculty and staff searches complain bitterly about being forced to hire someone they didn't find qualified. I have also heard from insiders about qualified women candidates being overlooked because there was a shortage of men in the particular field (such as secretaries and clerks) Diversity, it seems, goes both ways, law or no law! [ 12-03-2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]
__________________
"Don't take life for granted." Animal (may he rest in peace) |
|
12-03-2002, 02:39 PM | #28 | |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: August 16, 2002
Location: Newcastle, England
Age: 45
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
__________________
<br />[url]\"http://www.the-silver-river.com\" target=\"_blank\">Admin and Co-Owner of The Silver River!</a><br />[url]\"http://www.the-silver-river.com/Photo%20Album/Reeka.html\" target=\"_blank\">*SMNOOOOOOCH!*</a> You know who it\'s meant for <img border=\"0\" title=\"\" alt=\"[Wink]\" src=\"wink.gif\" /> |
|
12-03-2002, 03:03 PM | #29 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Sir Kenyth:
Race is a protected class, income level is not. Discriminate against the rich? Happens all the time. Ever see the US tax code? Different income levels pay different taxes. Not any class you can dream up deserves equal treatment. Statutes discriminate based on classification all the time, using such classes as: polluters, gas-guzzling car owners, banks, attorneys, mothers, fathers, dead persons, lenders, children, married persons, etc ad nauseum. Unless you mention something that is or should arguably be a protected class, it's not comparable to the race situation. |
12-03-2002, 03:29 PM | #30 | |
Ironworks Moderator
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Upstate NY USA
Posts: 19,737
|
Quote:
__________________
"Don't take life for granted." Animal (may he rest in peace) |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Supreme Court | DragonSlayer25 | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 1 | 06-30-2004 03:36 PM |
Affirmative Action in the USA. | MagiK | General Discussion | 25 | 06-29-2004 08:43 AM |
Anti-Affirmative Action Bake Sale Shut Down | Chewbacca | General Discussion | 22 | 10-02-2003 02:56 AM |
Michigan Affirmative Action Case | Timber Loftis | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 12 | 06-25-2003 11:22 PM |
Affirmative Action Case Heard at Supreme Court | Timber Loftis | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 10 | 04-03-2003 10:04 AM |