Skip to main content

 photo SoniaSotomayor_zps0c17e000.jpg

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Affirmative Action ‘Opened Doors in My Life,’ reports Ariane de Voque. Justice Sonia Sotomayer read her scathing dissent from the bench taking an unusual stab at Chief Justice Roberts saying “(t)he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race. ... It is a sentiment out of touch with reality. The majority upheld Michigan's voter-approved ban on raced-based affirmative action admissions policies.

Sotomayor, who is joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dedicates 58 pages to the dissent and highlights one central theme: Race matters. It’s the first time she has ever read a dissent from the bench, though she just recently told the Yale Law Journal that such readings are “like entertainment for the press” and “I really wish it didn’t happen at all.” But, she added, “it’s become a signal of how fiercely someone believes that the Court is wrong, and I understand some of that value.”

In her dissent, she notes that voters in Michigan could have used other means to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies. “They could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through general public awareness campaigns,” she says. “Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies.”

But instead she invokes the “political process doctrine” and says: “A majority of the Michigan electorate changed the basic rules of the political process” and “uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.”

 “A citizen who is a University of Michigan alumnus, for instance, can advocate for an admissions policy that considers an applicant’s legacy status by meeting individually with members of the Board of Regents to convince them of her views, by joining with other legacy parents to lobby the board, or by voting for and supporting Board candidates who share her position.”

This long article continues to quote long passage of her dissent and her reasoning where she asserts that the Michigan voter initiative  “restructures the political process” placing "unique burdens on racial minorities."

She continues:


“While our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process, it does guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process.”

“It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals–here, educational diversity.

This article will provide those interested in the details of the dissenting opinion an excellent short overview of her 58 page dissent.

4:46 PM PT: Thanks to annieli who brings us this link

Originally posted to HoundDog on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:23 PM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community and Invisible People.

Poll

Do you agree with the majority decision of the Supreme Court today upholding Michigan University's voter approved ban on race-based admissions process (i.e. affirmative action)?

7%330 votes
90%4145 votes
1%69 votes
0%23 votes
0%24 votes

| 4593 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (155+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, blueoregon, jwinIL14, worldlotus, Mariken, tharu1, rb137, alx9090, ontheleftcoast, nzanne, peacestpete, Villanova Rhodes, fcvaguy, wayoutinthestix, ceebee7, LilithGardener, slowbutsure, MsGrin, antirove, librarisingnsf, kerflooey, Grandma Susie, notrouble, johnnygunn, lennysfo, texasmom, noweasels, Gowrie Gal, oldpotsmuggler, Shockwave, hubcap, tegrat, bluezen, wilderness voice, Alumbrados, no way lack of brain, thomask, LakeSuperior, BlueOak, jacey, kathny, ask, owlbear1, pat bunny, BarackStarObama, ItsaMathJoke, peachcreek, peagreen, Syoho, juca, TexDem, fou, bbctooman, Dbug, Laurel in CA, Dave in Northridge, Ignacio Magaloni, myboo, vixenflem, Bule Betawi, laurak, where4art, David54, basquebob, ER Doc, begone, wader, dsb, sawgrass727, BMScott, badlands, SusiesPurl, prettygirlxoxoxo, LillithMc, bastrop, SneakySnu, walkshills, Sandino, Chaddiwicker, etherealfire, gramofsam1, Orinoco, Denise Oliver Velez, pfiore8, MartyM, samanthab, Raggedy Ann, gulfgal98, rapala, gsbadj, Sharon Wraight, Skyye, OHdog, ItsSimpleSimon, sidnora, stevenwag, eagleray, mikejay611, GreyHawk, BYw, LSmith, TheLizardKing, J M F, sable, MKinTN, Farkletoo, Oh Mary Oh, JML9999, eyesoars, PinHole, sowsearsoup, dmhlt 66, Lashe, OpherGopher, Josiah Bartlett, zerelda, psnyder, Chrislove, Just Bob, aznavy, burana, Steveningen, markdd, Fabienne, HedwigKos, Hohenzollern, Tool, kevinpdx, FindingMyVoice, Rejoinder, dewtx, flavor411, FogCityJohn, Sylv, Hillbilly Dem, rhp, debris54, i saw an old tree today, limulus curmudgeon, IdaMena2, kj in missouri, hnichols, river0, hbk, asindc, JayyVee, dewolf99, Toprow, aitchdee, stitchingasfastasIcan, JamieG from Md, friendjudy, beesknees, CaffeineInduced, splashy

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:23:19 PM PDT

  •  it was described as "epic" (76+ / 0-)

    http://images.politico.com/...

    and indeed it is  

    "We are fortunate to live in a democratic society," she began. "But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups. For that reason, our Constitu­tion places limits on what a majority of the people may do. This case implicates one such limit: the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

    "The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat," Sotomayor wrote. "But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities."

    The court, she continued, "ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:31:58 PM PDT

    •  Wow, this is the whole decision thanks. I (21+ / 0-)

      presume its okay with you if i post this link in the updates with h/t to you. Thanks annieli.

      "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

      by HoundDog on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:41:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent summary and analysis from scotusblog.com (12+ / 0-)

      can be found here:

      http://www.scotusblog.com/...

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:39:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so - what's next after this disgusting ruling? (6+ / 0-)

        A referendum on ballots, only provided to White voters...

        Should minorities be allowed to vote?

        _ Yes
        _ No

        "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

        by MartyM on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:35:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Marty - I think the difference is that affirmative (6+ / 0-)

          action has always been on a slippery constitutional slope. You can't discriminate on the basis of race, but that does not mean you can discriminate in favor of race. That too is discrimination, but viewed by many as "good discrimination". That puts AA clearly in the political arena with weak constitutional protection. This anti-AA constitutional amendment was added to California's constitution in 1996 and there has not been a wave of followers and no proposed amendment in CA to restrict voting to whites only.

          The example you state is a clear constitutional violation and would be treated as so by the Court.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:25:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's simpler (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dfsly, VClib, Be Skeptical, MGross

            The connection between "reordering the political process" is much more obvious in the case of changing voting rules than it is altering political process.

            I agree with Justice Breyer that overarching social policy has always resided with voters, who have always had the ability to amend the Constitution.  

            But as you note, Affirmative Action is in many ways an exception to the equal protection clause - it just so happens that the Court has rather narrowly held that diversity may be a compelling interest that justifies a narrowly-tailored race-based classification, depending on how the university conceptualizes its mission.  Voters may decide that interest is not compelling, which is to say, decide what they want their public universities to be, but that's a policy judgment.  I don't see it reordering the process, itself, even where, yes, minority votes were outnumbered, and to say otherwise almost requires one to believe Affirmative Action is constitutionally compelled, which is totally insupportable.  

            I'd have voted against this amendment, but the fact that Justice Sotomayor dissents most passionately doesn't make her position better than Justice Breyer's, whose concurrence I'd have signed on to.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:21:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is just false equivalence: (4+ / 0-)
            I think the difference is that affirmative action has always been on a slippery constitutional slope. You can't discriminate on the basis of race, but that does not mean you can discriminate in favor of race. That too is discrimination, but viewed by many as "good discrimination".
            Trying to equate something like a race-sensitive hiring or admissions policy to Jim Crow laws is worse than comparing apples and oranges.  The two things are so fundamentally different that no real comparison is possible.

            Calling affirmative action "discrimination" really conflates two entirely different things.  One is this country's sorry record of pervasive, and often violent, subjugation of its black citizens.  That represents true race discrimination.

            The other is the so-called "discrimination" against us poor white people.  This "discrimination" occurs when employers or educational institutions consider race as one factor in their hiring and admissions processes.  The consideration of race is intended to redress, in some very small measure, the effects of centuries of vicious race discrimination against African-Americans.  

            Yet so many people (almost all of them white) want to claim these are the same thing.  That Jim Crow and the University of Michigan's admissions policy suffer from the very same evil.  To make this argument is to ignore both this country's history and the continuing imbalance of power and opportunities between whites and nonwhites in contemporary American society.

            I see no reason why constitutional interpretation should have to ignore these undeniable realities.  

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:26:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  FCJ - the problem is that there is no clear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward, rainmanjr

              constitutional right to affirmative action. That makes AA a political issue and in the MI case before SCOTUS the 6-2 majority ruled that the voters should decide, not federal judges.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:35:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh yes, I know. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JanL

                Because if there's one thing this country has proved, it's that it loves to elevate form over substance when it comes to things like racial equality.  So white people have exactly the same right not to be discriminated against as African-Americans.  Good thing we've covered that, since our history of rampant discrimination against white people is really, really disturbing.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Might want to be careful (0+ / 0-)

                  when saying white people are not discriminated against in today's society.  For a number of years it was actually easier for a black man with a 3.8 gpa to get into a decent school than for a white man with a 4.0 and a ton of extra curricular work   Not saying the blacks have not been discriminated against, just that with the AA rules, many others have been equally discriminated against.  Oh, and a black woman could get in even easier, double discrimination, don't you know?

                  •  Reality check on Aisle 3! (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JanL, a2nite
                    Not saying the blacks have not been discriminated against, just that with the AA rules, many others have been equally discriminated against.  Oh, and a black woman could get in even easier, double discrimination, don't you know?
                    Wow!  Just wow.

                    It's hard to imagine there are people in this so-called "reality-based community" who could possibly believe that white people and black people have been equally discriminated against.  Even more incredible is the idea that black women enjoy some kind of double advantage because they've been the victims of both racism and sexism.

                    I'd love to hear the long and sorry tale of this country's discrimination against white people.  You know, the part about how we were all dragged here in chains against our will, and then held as property and repeatedly beaten, raped, and brutalized by our masters.  Then the part about how we were lynched if we so much as looked at a nonwhite person.  Then the part about the vast system of laws designed to deny us equal rights and relegate us to second-class status.

                    Yes, we white folks have had it really hard.  How will we ever recover from the indignity of letting colleges consider race as one among many factors in the admissions process?  O the horror!  

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:06:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  As FogCityJohn said, this is fallacious. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, FogCityJohn

                    This notion of an "equality of discrimination" is based on the fallacy of false equivalence. This is the same flaw in the reasoning behind the so-called "men's rights movement," which pretends to provide a counterbalance to feminism, as though there were equivalent levels of oppression.

                    Nobody questions the concept of giving special treatment to the physically or mentally disadvantaged, even though the rest of us are every bit their equals as citizens. But if it is an advantage to be white, or male, in the US (and it is), then it is a disadvantage to be non-white, or female; and nobody should begrudge the concept of giving special treatment to those disadvantaged groups, even though members of advantaged groups may be otherwise equal.

  •  'Tis bout damn time someone poked Roberts in ribs. (23+ / 0-)

    The spice must flow, or sprinkled.if doing rub.

    by jwinIL14 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:31:59 PM PDT

  •  bears repeating... (12+ / 0-)
    “A citizen who is a University of Michigan alumnus, for instance, can advocate for an admissions policy that considers an applicant’s legacy status by meeting individually with members of the Board of Regents to convince them of her views, by joining with other legacy parents to lobby the board, or by voting for and supporting Board candidates who share her position.”
    I will read all 58 pages of the dissenting opinion.

    "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

    by rb137 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:38:01 PM PDT

    •  Thanks rb. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb137, peacestpete, tharu1, ER Doc, BMScott

      "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

      by HoundDog on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:42:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You advocate all you want ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control, Victor Ward

      ... but you cannot use the ballot box to actually implement race neutral policies just because Sotomayor says so.

      When did direct democracy become evil?

      •  I don't think that's the point (7+ / 0-)

        of the section I copied. And you are the one sewing "democracy is evil" out of whole cloth.  (Is that from "Sotomayor disagrees with a state law" = "Sotomayor thinks democracy is evil"?)

        Perhaps you think she's guilty of drawing false equivalence? Universities do grant favorable consideration for applicants with legacy status. Should that be on the same footing as favorable consideration for affirmative action? I think there is far more advantage given to legacies than to diversity candidates.

        I think Sotomayor is pointing out that legacy status has an advantage similar to diversity, and is striking a comparison, that's all. Should they should be treated similarly?

        "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

        by rb137 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:18:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  your comment you linked to (9+ / 0-)
            Nice try. However, minorities can obtain alumni status and donation preferences as well. Nothing is stopping African Americans from making generous donations or Hispanics from studying hard and obtaining admission the old fashioned way ... by earning it.
            is bigoted - what makes you think Hispanics don't study hard?

            The "old-fashioned way" in this county used to keep quite a lot of people out of colleges - including women and Jewish people.

            "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

            by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:56:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are missing the point: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeanObama, Victor Ward

              They can and do study hard. They can also be wealthy, or a legacy.

              Giving special preference due to skin pigmentation is wrong: Morally, politically and logically- if the goal is an end to institutionalized racism. Prohibiting such racial preference (dare not call it racism,) should be encouraged, and should certainly be legal.

              That this decision was 6-2 speaks to that.

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              When did insistence that people earn admission through hard study and hard work become bigoted?

              >>> what makes you think Hispanics don't study hard?

              I'm sure many do and that many don't. The statement does not imply laziness. As race neutral admission committees admit more underrepresented minorities (URMs) based on merit, URMs will be able to reap the advantages of alumni status and donation status.

              The the word choice "old-fashioned way" was improper.

              •  I never said you were bigoted. (0+ / 0-)

                That's on you, too.

                "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:02:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You're ignoring reality. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite
                However, minorities can obtain alumni status and donation preferences as well. Nothing is stopping African Americans from making generous donations or Hispanics from studying hard and obtaining admission the old fashioned way ... by earning it.
                You completely fail to consider the continuing effects of past discrimination.  You claim minorities can obtain alumni status and donation preferences as well.

                Of course, to do that, they'd have to have been admitted in the first place, and the fact of the matter is that only a very small percentage of minorities do get admitted.  To make "generous donations," they'd have to have the extra money to do so, which is hard when you're part of a group that has historically been denied equal educational and employment opportunities.

                Your theory only works if one turns a completely blind eye to the historical realities of the effects of systemic racism.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  When you began... (0+ / 0-)

                thinking that only hard work gets you into the college of your choice.  

                "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

                by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:40:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I read your comment. (0+ / 0-)

            I think you're confused about what Supreme Court Justices do for a living. Constitutional interpretation is not logically a two state process. Rarely is something clearly "right" or "wrong" -- and as you know, there is a spectrum of opinion on everything. That's why the Supreme Court votes on whether or not state laws are consistent with Federal laws.

            That out of the way...

            So, you're honked off that Sotomayor and supporters of affirmative action have transgressed the 14th amendment? That, and it's okay for a state funded school to grant privilege to people based on their parents' past donations, their legacy status, and likelihood of potential future monetary support. It isn't okay to grant privilege based on anything else.  And the problem is that minorities just haven't risen to the occasion. If they want privilege, they'd better pony up, then.

            What is your take on Citizen's United?

            "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

            by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Response. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward

              >>> it's okay for a state funded school to grant privilege to people based on their parents' past donations, their legacy status, and likelihood of potential future monetary support.

              I oppose it, but it's not unconstitutional. I support legislation would ban those things.

              >>> It isn't okay to grant privilege based on anything else.

              Would you elaborate?

              >>> And the problem is that minorities just haven't risen to the occasion. If they want privilege, they'd better pony up, then.

              Some have and other's haven't. People should be admitted or hired based on their merits.

              >>> What is your take on Citizen's United?

              It should be repealed.

              •  elaborating... (0+ / 0-)

                Your comment from the link you cited:

                ... except that alumni status and donation preferences do not violate the 14th Amendment. If think those types of preferences are bad, put forward your own petition and get it approved.
                and
                Nice try. However, minorities can obtain alumni status and donation preferences as well.
                That's just wrong. And that is exactly what affirmative action is trying to address and correct. Or, you might think of it as a chicken and egg problem of getting those minority alums to pile up so this rich alumni donation thing can get started.

                If people should be admitted based on their merits, then how is it okay to give them special privilege based on legacy status, past donations by relatives, etc.?

                To the 14th Amendment -- do you really think that affirmative action is abridging white folks' right to liberty, property, or life without due process? Failing to give them equal protection under the law?

                Pretty often, "liberty" and "protection" mean "preserving my privilege" to people of dominant culture. I'm not saying that you have said this -- but it is a common sentiment behind reverse discrimination claims.

                Keep in mind that affirmative action operates on "quotas". Often, it means that a department has to take on one minority and no more. So, a lot of qualified minorities are turned away because their token slot is filled. While this does point to a flaw in affirmative action -- it also reduces the 14th Amendment argument to absurd.

                Affirmative action isn't putting a dent on white men's liberties.

                "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:39:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Victor Ward

                  Public schools should stop using alumni and donation preferences. However, if they are in place, minorities can still get them for their children by graduating or writing a check.

                  Reverse discrimination is a BS term. However, fighting discrimination with discrimination ultimately fails because it engenders hostility by the majority group against the minority. The BGLT movement, which to my knowledge has not called for affirmative action, is making progress more quickly. Maybe there's a lesson there.

                  AA does not act on quotas. SCotUS made that clear in 2003. Race must be one factor among many and weighed in a holistic manner.

                  •  Here we go again: (0+ / 0-)
                    Reverse discrimination is a BS term. However, fighting discrimination with discrimination ultimately fails because it engenders hostility by the majority group against the minority.
                    We can't fight any kind of discrimination, because if we do, it will make the people who possess privilege hostile to the minority.  Presumably, this new hostility will exceed the majority's already existing hostility to whatever minority group is at issue.

                    Oh, and I'd ask you not to tell people what lessons they should draw from the struggle for LGBT equality.  Those of us who are part of that community understand those lessons a lot better than you do.

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:16:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  What you're advocating is (0+ / 0-)

                    an argument based on reverse discrimination. And it only benefits the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful. It leaves the folks who can't compete with dollars in the dust.

                    There are plenty of poor, white kids whose parents don't have dollars to vote with, as well. Someone should advocate for them.

                    AA does act on quotas, in a de facto way today. And they did act on quotas prior. How do you think folks weigh race as a factor? By quantifying the statistics of their applicant sample. While folks don't (now) say that we must admit 5% minority students (or whatever), they do have diversity limitations set in the decision making process.

                    And please, stop with the false equivalence between LGBT and race with respect to AA. It's a red herring. (Logical fallacies rarely live alone.)

                    Anyway, our primary disagreement is about the 14th Amendment and whether or not supporting AA equals thinking democracy is evil.

                    "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                    by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:17:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Post. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Victor Ward

                      >>> What you're advocating is an argument based on reverse discrimination.

                      No.

                      >>> it only benefits the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful. It leaves the folks who can't compete with dollars in the dust.

                      I'd prefer those advantages be eliminated.

                      >>> AA does act on quotas, in a de facto way today.

                      You need to reread Grutter v. Bollinger

                      >>> And please, stop with the false equivalence between LGBT and race with respect to AA.

                      No. I said that the African American civil rights movement can learn from the BGLT movement.

                      >>> our primary disagreement is about the 14th Amendment and whether or not supporting AA equals thinking democracy is evil.

                      No. The problem is you don't understand the law surrounding the 14th Amendment.

                      •  Okay. You're not interested in (0+ / 0-)

                        having a discussion about how the laws are actually enforced or how that enforcement affects people of color. Got it.

                        "Read Grutter v Bollinger" is sidestepping what I said. I am stating categorically that de fact quotas are still in effect in spite of Grutter and Bollinger.

                        And no, you weren't just saying that the African America civil rights movement could learn from the BGLT movement. I presume you know a lot about the BGLT movement, so you also know that the biases that drive discrimination against blacks are different than those that drive discrimination against the BGLT community. The most obvious element relevant to the topic at hand: candidates aren't forced to disclose sexual preference on their college applications. Keep your eye on the ball.

                        People in the LGBT community come from all walks, racial backgrounds, classes, castes, and levels of privilege. Comparing the two in a way that assumes they are is false equivalence.

                        And I do understand the law surrounding the 14th amendment. I more interested in the effects of how it's enforced.

                        "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                        by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:34:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Legacy admissions (0+ / 0-)

          In large selective public universities, legacy enrollments represent a very tiny fraction of admissions.  IIRC the University of California has no legacy admissions at all.

          Even in the old private universities, having alumni parents may help a little, but the at the most selective colleges it might bump up your chances from 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 3, all things being equal.  It's not like it was 50 years ago.  Most of those same schools are actively trying to recruit black and Latino students.  Applicants at the worst disadvantage are Asians and working class white students.

          •  Do you think a 1 in 3 chance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn

            isn't a lot different than a 1 in 10 chance?

            And good for the UC system for not having legacy admissions, at least policy-wise. Do you think this extends to graduate admissions, as well? In a de facto way?

            Affirmative action isn't a slam dunk for minorities, either. It's a myth that universities will always choose a minority candidate over non-minority candidate? "It only takes one..."

            "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

            by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 10:51:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, but I'm not sure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rb137

              I quite interpreted it correctly.  I am familiar with a certain college, a very selective one, that admits about 10% of applicants.  However, children of alumni are admitted at about a 1 in 3 rate.  What I am not really sure I stated correctly is the "all other things being equal" part.   There is a lot to that phrase.  In terms of admissions, I think I gave a mis-impression.  Those percentages are not really for "all things equal."  

              I remember when I read that stat I thought that it wasn't too surprising as many of these alumni children would be highly qualified based on their grades, test scores, extra curriculars, etc.  Of course, these alumni children often have had many extra advantages as well.  But it's not like they literally, automatically get a three-fold boost in their admission chances.   Based on their other qualifications alone they may have had substantially improved odds to other applicants anyway.

              As far as UC legacies, I don't know about grad admissions.  I really doubt it helps for PhD programs.  Maybe law school and med school, but I don't know.  It shouldn't happen at any level in a public university. On the other hand, I think affirmative action programs at the post-graduate and professional level are a bad idea.  Recruitment and retention should be the focus at that level.

              •  We really can't have this conversation (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Be Skeptical

                unless we start digging up numbers -- and I'm not sure that would be useful. I'm not sure we really have access to the numbers we want, anyway. What I think we really want to talk about is fairness.

                Selective schools have really arbitrary criteria for admitting candidates. Suppose you have four similarly qualified candidates for every offer you plan to extend. How do you go about choosing? A university will use all sorts of criteria.

                "We need a clarinet player and a third of our tennis team graduated. Let's look for a valedictorian who plays clarinet and tennis. Done."

                Legacy status will indirectly influence every step (for a university that honors legacy privilege). The way that legacies are given more advantage than affirmative action candidates -- they don't have a quota of legacies to meet.

                Some universities are trying to increase their diversity, simply because they think that diversity is a good thing. Unfortunately, this sometimes gets distilled into picking over candidates based on race in the same manner they pick over clarinet and tennis players.

                The danger is that a selection effect comes from the fact that they'll look for the number minorities they need, and once they find that number they won't consider it again. Legacy status is an advantage through the whole process.

                "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:05:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with everything you say (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb137

                  Most schools aren't going to give up those numbers either.  

                  when you state that "Legacy status is an advantage through the whole process,"  I would only add that the advantages for those children often begin in utero.

                  •  I think we do agree, pretty much. (0+ / 0-)

                    Especially about that in utero thing. People who are showered with advantages from birth really do have lives that unfold differently than people who aren't so fortunate. And it's hard to convince people of privilege that this is true.

                    A lot of them remember crossing home plate, but forget they were born on third base.  ;)

                    "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift

                    by rb137 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:37:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Who said it's evil? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B

        The question is whether it's constitutional.

        It's sort of a natural thing though, that the same white majority that voted in this provision is the same white majority that abandoned Detroit and Flint, leaving one in bankruptcy and the other one now near bankruptcy.  

        Now the white majority is suddenly the disadvantaged party in a case involving several students?  

        The flaw is that the equal protection clause was never intended to protect the interests of the majority.  

        Minority set-asides in government contracts will be next, just wait.

        "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

        by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:13:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, why not let the majority (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ItsSimpleSimon, cardboardurinal

        dictate what fundamental rights they will allow minorities to have?

        I'll tell you why not. There's this thing called the Bill of Rights....

        •  Missing the point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfsly, Victor Ward

          AA programs do not protect fundamental rights. Gov programs that discriminate based upon race are automatically suspect and must meet strict scrutiny to survive judicial review. Polices that are race neurtal are constitutional by nature.

          Now, if an approved state referendum burdened a minority group (same-sex marriage bans), then judicial review should void the law even if a majority supported it.

          •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

            because reverse racism is a real thing.  In our society there is no such thing as "race neutral" as much as you claim there is.    

            "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

            by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:41:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  AA is discriminatory. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward

              >>> In our society there is no such thing as "race neutral" as much as you claim there is.

              Then the solution is to look into our hearts and souls and purge bias and bigotedness from ourselves. Implementing policies that explicitly insert bias into the law is not the answer.

              •  In what world do you... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FogCityJohn

                live in?  Purging bias?  Really?  So in the meantime, we should just let this newest generation of blacks and Latinos fail to do better than their parents until white people become comfortable enough not to discriminate against them both at a person and institutional level?

                "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

                by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:52:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Legacy admissions are affirmative action (4+ / 0-)

      for the privileged and well off. Somehow this seems to be no problem to  the people who object to affirmative action for minorities.

      •  Already answered above. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        1) Eliminate alumni/donation based preferences or

        2) Minorities benefit from alumni/donation preferences as race neutral admission policies open doors to minorities.

        The presence of alumni/donation preferences does not justify affirmative action.

      •  Many universities already got rid of legacy... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Be Skeptical

        ...admissions.

        From this article:

        The researchers also examined giving at seven institutions that dropped legacy preferences during the period of the study. They found "no short-term measurable reduction in alumni giving as a result of abolishing legacy preferences." For example, after Texas A&M eliminated the use of legacy preferences, in 2004, donations took a small hit, but then they increased substantially from 2005 to 2007.

        Nor can legacy preferences be said to be necessary for colleges to maintain high standards of excellence. It is intriguing to note that, among the top 10 universities in the world in 2008, according to the widely cited Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings, are four (Caltech, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Cambridge) that do not employ legacy preferences.

  •  the crux of US identity politics (17+ / 0-)
    "The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat," Sotomayor wrote. "But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities."

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 04:44:18 PM PDT

    •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikejay611, ozsea1

      I was thinking that if you substitute "the wealthy" for "majorities" and the substitute "the poor" for "minorities" and finally substitute "admission to the political process" for admission to college," you go a long way toward explaining GOP social politics.  try it on a few of Justice Sotomayor's quotes.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:58:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is merit based entry to a university (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Victor Ward

      really a racial barrier? Are you trying to say that women and minorities aren't as smart? That they aren't just as capable of being accepted on merit?

      It sounds very much like you are insinuating that.

      •  Go find the most recent clip (4+ / 0-)

        from Neal DeGrasse Tyson.

        Then come back and tell us why you think he is full of shit.

      •  The problem is how those "merits" are acquired (0+ / 0-)

        and earned.

        Given any two individual of the same "smartness" and "hard-workness", in the current education system, the one with wealthy parent will almost always come out ahead (better access to education resources at the very least).

        I agree that Affirmative Action is problematic on various ground, but it is a bandage for a more deeply ingrained problem. I say we keep the bandage for a while longer until such deeply ingrained problem is solved.

  •  Rather cut and dry (7+ / 1-)

    This was not a close case. It broke 6-2. With a highly polar court if even half your voting buddies disagree with you.  Chances are you are just wrong.

    •  Only 1 (4+ / 0-)

      Kagan recused so Breyer joined the majority.  Let's not pretend he is a liberal, never has been.

    •  This was a case about who decides a state's rules (11+ / 0-)

      regarding affirmative action. The Court decided that it was OK for voters to decide, not federal judges.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:37:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Judges should not overrule the voters. (8+ / 0-)

        Race based discrimination is inherently suspect under the 14th Amendment. Laws that end state sponsored discrimination are not.

        •  I submit it's (6+ / 0-)

          only "discrimination" when somebody that looks like you, who is in the majority, thinks that somebody who looks like me, in the minority is receiving an unfair advantage. Your whole existence is an unfair advantage comparatively. What would you know about "discrimination" anyway? Until you have been judged daily on something you can't change about yourself, your arguments are all conjecture and disingenuous, and not at all based in fact... Perspective is a bitch...

          No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

          by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:34:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  X2 (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mikejay611, aznavy, FindingMyVoice

            nosotros no somos estúpidos

            by a2nite on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:00:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The existence of a majority is unfair? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            Any number of ways you look at this, numbers are the problem whether it's the numbers on the SAT or ACT or numbers of white voters or the number of Asian voters whose kids have the numbers.  

            You need numbers.  If you don't have enough, you need to figure out how to add up coalitions and darn that gets harder the more you subtract Asians, Jews, even women who now often out score men on the tests.  

            •  The existence of (3+ / 0-)

              White privilege with it's continued oppression of the minority via our current system of government and political processes is indeed unfair. How else would you characterize it? Tough luck?

              No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

              by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:44:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oppression of what minority? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Brazilians, and of course native Africans are out competing you.  

                The problem you've got is not whites at all.  The problem you've got is that those other minorities aren't making excuses, they're making places for themselves so taking refuge in affirmative action based on race isn't going to do you any good anyway.  

                Life is unfair and the competition for all of us is global.  

                •  Who said anything about fair? (0+ / 0-)

                  And how many of those other mentioned groups are descendants of folks that were brought here in chains, versus immigrants (and descendants of) that came here freely (if you're referring to those groups represented here in the US)? And please spare me the "life is hard for all of us" and the lecture on my work ethic, when you don't know me. Next time you're followed around a store, or pulled over in your own suburb for being suspicious, let me know. Because that was last week for me. Excuses? I think not Sir/ Madam. I don't seek refuge in anything other than being allowed the same access to opportunity that the majority in this country have. That's a fair shot. Seems like everyone here complaining about affirmative action has no clue how it works, and perceive it as taking away the privilege they enjoy. Sad for a site like this really...

                  No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

                  by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:17:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So black people are "making excuses"? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mikejay611

                  Really?  That's your argument?

                  Sorry, but you just gave away the game there.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:35:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I might be gay or bisexual. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            However, I'm not going to tell. It's none of your business.

            >>> Your whole existence is an unfair advantage comparatively.

            Then let's work to disempower those who perpetuate white privilege. I don't want to fight discrimination with more discrimination.

            •  It is discriminatory (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FindingMyVoice, sweatyb

              to pretend it discrimination doesn't exist. And you're all for calling attempts to level the playing field, but funny I don't see the majority facing the same levels of unemployment, poverty, education and wage discrimination as people of color. Don't tell me that's discriminatory until you've been discriminated against for something you can't change. Gay or bisexual you can hide. Hide your skin color and get back to me. Oh, but that's right - Why would you ever what to change your skin color?

              No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

              by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:37:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Answers. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward, O112358

                >>> It is discriminatory to pretend it discrimination doesn't exist.

                Discrimination does exist. However, AA is also discrimination.

                >>> I don't see the majority facing the same levels of unemployment, poverty, education and wage discrimination as people of color.

                This describes a problem that needs to be solved. However, there are ways to fight these back without AA. I refer you to http://www.dailykos.com/...

                >>> Don't tell me that's discriminatory until you've been discriminated against for something you can't change.

                I'm a citizen of the United States. I have the right to express my views and vote just like everyone else.

                >>> Gay or bisexual you can hide.

                I wouldn't make this point with a BGLT activist.

            •  Soooo... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, mikejay611
              Then let's work to disempower those who perpetuate white privilege. I don't want to fight discrimination with more discrimination.
              What should all us colored folks do while that's worked on for, oh say a half a dozen more decades?

              Maybe go sit at the back of the bus?

                •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn, mikejay611

                  I am, well somewhat speechless.

                  Here are your solutions:

                  -- Income inequality can be solved with higher taxes, reducing the cost of attending college, providing minorities more opportunities to learn without giving AA in admission, returning welfare as we knew it before Clinton, and universal access to medical care.

                  -- Housing and education: as minorities increase their economic power, they will be able to afford to live in places that have higher rents and home prices. That also solves for school segregation.

                  -- Criminal justice: I'm less familiar with inequities in the  criminal justice system. However, I do realize that the cocaine/crack sentencing disparity is being dealt with. A step in the right direction. Also, decreasing economic inequalities should help.

                  I think a lot of white racial animus comes from the fear that the economy is a zero-sum game, and gains by minorities guarantees that whites will fall behind. Easing that fear with greater opportunity across the board should alivate whose fears.

                  Let's just say, for the sake of argument that all of your suggestions will create racial equality.  What should people of color do in the meantime while all of these suggestions are being hashed out in congress, the courts, etc.  You don't really believe that any of these things will happen in short order, do you?

                  But, to your suggestions.

                  There are many minorities that live in high rent areas, and go to mostly white schools.  That does not stop discrimination.  I can personally speak to this because every school I went to after kindergarten was predominately white.  I was often either the only,or one of a few non white faces in the class.

                  That did not stop a teacher from "assuming" that I belonged in the remedial reading group, even though I was reading way above grade level.  How would your solutions help a child like me?

                  You acknowledge that you aren't familiar with problems in the justice system.  Do you really think that the inequalities in the justice system are just about the drug trade?  Really?

                  You say fix welfare huh?  That should help.  How is "fixing" welfare going to stop being followed by police.  Being paid less for the same work.  Being passed over for job interviews because your resume has an ethnic sounding name.

                  I'm sorry, but your solutions, don't amount to anything when it comes to solving the race issue in this country.

                  •  Running erends (0+ / 0-)

                    I need to into the real world and do some things. When I get back, I'll have more to say.

                  •  There are (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn

                    some folks on  this site that are willfully ignorant to their White privilege. DeanObama talks pie in the sky shit that will never happen while using the flawed logic of those that would have us back to the ways of Jim Crow. I have never understood how ensuring that a marginalized group in this country has equal access to education by accounting for that marginalization is discriminatory. I guess it really is the fact that they have no clue what we go through, and are framing the argument from their privileged POV.

                    No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

                    by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:16:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You call it equal access (0+ / 0-)

                      The voters of Michigan called it privileged access.

                      The majority of Michigan voters believe that giving specific  ethnic groups a special privilege was racism.

                      By proxy around 58% of Michigan voters figured that giving race based preferences is racist.

                  •  Just a small part. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Victor Ward

                    The "solutions" listed were my response to three particular problems delinated by Denise Oliver Velez. I'll grant that more ... so much more ... must be done to root out racism and discrimination against minorities. However, would you agree those things might be good things to do?

                    >>> What should people of color do in the meantime while all of these suggestions are being hashed out in congress, the courts, etc.  You don't really believe that any of these things will happen in short order, do you?

                    Obey the 14th Amendment would be a good start.

                    I'd suggest looking to the BGLT movement for ideas. They seem to making progress without calling for AA.

                    >>> That did not stop a teacher from "assuming" that I belonged in the remedial reading group, even though I was reading way above grade level.  How would your solutions help a child like me?

                    Well, this is a different type of problem, yes? However, how does AA in college admissions solve that problem? By the time you got to 12th grade, what happened in first grade already happened.

                    Actually, I wonder what solutions other than AA you might have.

                    >>> Do you really think that the inequalities in the justice system are just about the drug trade?  Really?

                    I don't know. However, I doubt AA will fix it either.

                    •  You know what I would really like (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FogCityJohn

                      as a solution?  For white folks to just treat me as a person.

                      Not make any negative assumptions about me based on the color of my skin.

                      It doesn't matter how I dress, how I wear my hair, or how much money I have or appear to have, or how "proper" my speech pattern, my skin color and the stigma that white society assigns to it  follows me.

                      I would like very much for that to stop.

                      You see, economic advances would be nice, so would educational advantages.  But those things will never help the true core of the problem - that there are many white people who quite honestly think that they are better just because their skin is white.

                      That single truth of racism is why you still hear of the black doctor who is hassled by the cops in his fancy car. Or how even the beloved Oprah who is clearly financially part of the 1% is sometimes publicly reminded that she's still black with some insult, slight or display of disrespect. Or the black person shopping in the fancy store accused of stealing, when they clearly have more disposable income than the store clerk doing the accusing.

                      So as a black person in this country, you can do everything "right" - be educated, successful, financially secure, etc etc.  and yet still - you can be treated like a nigger at any time.

                      This is why, affirmative action is still needed. Because there are many in positions of power...bosses, college recruiters, managers, police, judges, etc. who think very negative things about minorities and act on these assumptions.  They don't wear klan hoods, or foam at the mouth while shouting racial slurs...they just think blacks are animals and it colors their judgements and actions.

                      People like that must be forced, by the law, to treat people equally, because left to their own devices they won't.

                      •  ^^^^THIS^^^^ (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        EastcoastChick

                        Wish I could rec your comment 1,000 times.

                        Thanks for providing a bit of real-world experience to this discussion.  Far too many of us white folks have no idea what this is like, and sadly, many of us resist being educated about it.

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:47:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  A thought experiment (0+ / 0-)

                        It would indeed be wonderful if the world you describe could magically arrive.

                        I must ask one uncomfortable question though.  If everyone's prior assumptions were erased, would they nevertheless return if the difference in crime rates didn't change?

                        •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

                          See, your "question" is exactly what I'm referring to.  

                          If everyone had zero assumptions about race, then one person's crime would not be seen as representative of that person's race.  People would just say "oh, that's terrible that Joe Smith robbed someone, he should get a job".  Or "oh, he must be crazy to have shot someone 20 times".  Instead of "oh, those blacks are animals!  Shooting and killing!" or "oh, those lazy blacks always stealing instead of working!"

                          But that's not your point is it?  You imply that blacks commit a whole boat load of crime.  So of course, white people will naturally draw some negative conclusion, right?

                          Maybe you should ask yourself, why your mind went there.

                          •  Yes, people will fall into the same biases (0+ / 0-)

                            Then where would the problem lie?  That humans base their behavior on their observations of the world?  It will be an endless struggle to eliminate their preconceptions if they keep getting reinforced.  The best way to eliminate people's biases is to reduce the behaviors which give rise to them.  In my thought experiment everyone started off with zero assumptions about race.  But, being human, they will subsequently use the information they gain in their lives going forward.  So if they observe that blacks are much more likely to commit crimes, then it is inevitable these biases will re-occur.  I shouldn't have to go through the crime stats--you certainly know them.  But if they were to equalize overnight, and everyone underwent that magical mindshift that erased their biases, then if the crime rates remained equal the bias and stigma would largely fade away. That's because a fear of crime is responsible for an awful lot of the stigma.  Yes, it's unfair to the majority of blacks who are not criminals. So who to blame?  Whites and Asians and Latinos who have a fear of black crime?  OK.  A lot of that fear is irrational.  The human brain is imperfect, but pattern recognition is a selective advantage that has gotten humans to where we are.  Are the criminals whose selfish anti-social behavior reinforces the bias also to blame?  
                            Just some things to think about.

                          •  Double sigh (0+ / 0-)
                            That's because a fear of crime is responsible for an awful lot of the stigma.
                            That right there is a lie.  Fear of crime has nothing to do with the assumption that blacks are stupid, not well spoken, inferior or ugly.  The "black people are violent criminals" is a newer insult that has been added to the pile of existing insults.
                            So if they observe that blacks are much more likely to commit crimes,
                            Really? So if I have never had a black person rob me, attack me or do harm to me in any way, how will I reach that assumption?  And if you actually believe that quote, then, well...bless your heart.
                            Are the criminals whose selfish anti-social behavior reinforces the bias also to blame?  
                            See here's the racist rub that you are willfully missing.  

                            See the quote from you above?  There are criminals in every ethnic, racial and economic class - both violent and non violent.  But it seems only with minorities does the activities of individuals get applied to the group as a characteristic.

                            Maybe you should think about why that is as a thought experiment.

                          •  You deny human nature (0+ / 0-)

                            and some very basic facts.  Yes, people do indeed fear black crime, particularly violent crime committed against strangers.  Being afraid that a black person is more likely to commit a crime is not the same as thinking that all blacks are violent criminals.  But yes, people are concerned that a black person is more likely to steal their car, mug them, or break into their house.  They are, whether it's fair or not, and whether you feel it or not.  To deny this is to delude yourself.

                            Look at some of the examples of the kind of bias blacks experience and that you note:
                            The black doctor who is hassled by the cops in his fancy car.   Oprah being approached in Switzerland when she handled a $25,000 purse, the black person shopping in the fancy store accused of stealing, when they clearly have more disposable income than the store clerk doing the accusing. Then we have the recent example of the ex-baseball player who was questioned by police when shoveling snow in his own driveway.  And then there was the police response to Henry Louis Gates trying to get into his own house.

                            You're right that these types of incidents are not purely related to fear.  But they are certainly related to concerns about crime.  The incidents clearly related to fear are ones like locking the car door in a parking lot when approached by a black man, or crossing the street to avoid a group of black youth, or cab drivers unwilling to take fares into certain black neighborhoods.  But in fact a concern about crime affects all of the  incidents you noted as well, whether it'a shoplifting, or home break-ins. or actual violent crime.  None of those have to do with being perceived as stupid or lazy.  But if you don't think it has to do with concerns about crime, what do you think is responsible for it?  Honestly.

                            Here is what President Obama said:

                            Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.
                            He went on to note the undeniable historical context, but he certainly acknowledged the disproportionate amount of crime committed by black youth.

                            If women lock their car doors, if cabbies refuse good money for fares to black neighborhoods, if a man glances around nervously when he realizes a black man is waiting behind him at the ATM, what do you attribute those behaviors to?  To just say "racism" is a circular argument.  In the thought experiment I proposed above, prior biases would have been removed.  If after two years, crime rates for blacks were no higher than for other races do you really think these fear-based practices would still occur?  On the other hand, if the difference in crime rates continued at its current level, do you think in ten years people would have reverted to these prejudicial practices?  

                            To the extent my questions reveal something, I'll certainly admit that I am concerned about crime, as are most people.  I am also aware of the very high rates of crime among black men relative to to other demographic groups and do not see any reason to ignore that fact, and I know about the crimes in my neighborhood and who has committed them.  

                            So of course I call out the black criminals whose selfish anti-social behavior reinforce the bias,  because, well, we are talking about bias directed against black people.  Right?  Isn't the origin and reasons for the perpetuation of that bias the whole point of the discussion?

                          •  I see you (0+ / 0-)

                            Continue to ignore my point while continuing to repeat your "blacks are more likely to be criminals, therefore it's natural to fear and mistreat them" meme.

                            Well since that is what you believe you should probably stop talking to me, I might just steal some of your pixels.

                          •  Was this your point that I missed? (0+ / 0-)

                            I addressed every single one.  You may not like my response, but it is there.  Whether it is rational or not, the fear and concern over black crime is a real thing, an until that is recognized, then nothing else makes sense.

                            Maybe answer this one simple example.  If a fear of black crime doesn't explain why many taxi drivers decline the opportunity to accept a good size far to a black neighborhood, what does?

          •  The massive hypocrisy of your statement is (0+ / 0-)

            impressive

        •  Wow, that's bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sweatyb

          Judges overrule voters quite frequently.

          Just in the past few years there have been dozens of ballot initiatives that fell before courts.

          CA Prop 8 is probably the most high profile.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:05:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  chance doesn't enter into it. (0+ / 0-)

      Argumentum ad populum.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:13:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Loge

      Did you even read the opinion?  It didn't break down 6-2.  It broke down 3-2-1-2.

      There's a 3-justice plurality opinion, then a 2-justice opinion concurring in the judgment, then a 1-justice concurrence, and then a 2-justice dissent.

      This is a case that produced no majority.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:41:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Breyer's concurrence spends more time (0+ / 0-)

        disagreeing with Scalia's concurrence on the propriety of Affirmative Action, and it's much narrower on the reordering doctrine question than the plurality.  By my count, it's 6-2 on the doctrine question, 3-2 in favor of the constitutionality of Affirmative Action as a concept.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:35:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUS is now up to its waist (13+ / 0-)

    in politics, a 180 degree opposition to the Court's historical position regarding political advocacy.  Prior to the Senate's wimpy approval of G.W. Bush's nominations to the Court, SCOTUS still barely maintained that stance.  Not any more.  This is sad, and makes me wonder anew at the future of democracy, even the distorted "democracy" we now have in America.  Even more sadly, I believe history may well judge Judge Thomas to be the worst bench appointee in history, perhaps even including the extreme partisan political activity of his wife.

    How children dance to the unlived lives of their parents. Rilke

    by ceebee7 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:37:26 PM PDT

    •  It fits though (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikejay611, ozsea1, aznavy

      Majorities/ the wealthy denying minorities/the poor access to the the political/economic process in order to preserve their privilege describes the past 20-30 years of GOP politics.

      Why else do they oppose campaign finance laws? Why else purging voter rolls? Why else the selective pursuit of a draconian"war on drugs" which incarcerates young black men at rates far higher than their population numbers would suggest, which then condemns them to disenfranchisement, disentitlement to government benefits and ultimately poverty? Why else oppose trying to affirmative action programs?

      History may judge this Court harshly but only when it's no longer the white majority writing the history book. Sorry to be cynical but I don't share your faith in enlightenment. (Disclaimer: I'm white :))

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:27:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This. ^^^ (0+ / 0-)

        "The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." Ayn Rand

        by aznavy on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:58:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We agree on ... except ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward
        Why else do they oppose campaign finance laws? Why else purging voter rolls? Why else the selective pursuit of a draconian"war on drugs" which incarcerates young black men at rates far higher than their population numbers would suggest, which then condemns them to disenfranchisement, disentitlement to government benefits and ultimately poverty? Why else oppose trying to affirmative action programs?
        We agree on everything in the block quote except for AA programs.
        •  How about this? (0+ / 0-)

          Would you agree that, putting aside the legality, that is a motivation behind this issue for the GOP? or at least a GOTV issue?

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:43:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A star (12+ / 0-)

    I am always so proud of Sonia Sotomayor.  She is like a beacon of hope on an overstuffed with nastiness court(figure out who those are), and a worship of the moneyed court, the country-club set that have nothing, really, to do with America--and who those are could be answered so easily.  I'm not proud of them.
    They are not the best of America.

    Hoping with all my heart for all the good fortunes to protect this brave, civic-minded, caring being.

  •  Here's to the day (14+ / 0-)

    when Justice Sotomayor proudly reads from the bench the majority opinion that overrules today's majority's opinion.

  •  23% here agree with the ruling. (8+ / 0-)

    On a "progressive" blog.

    The progressive movement ISN'T.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:24:41 PM PDT

    •  Yep. I'm disappointed in the poll results as well. (6+ / 0-)

      Do those 23% not see a role for the Supreme Court in protecting minorities from majority rule?

      “While our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process, it does guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process.”
      “It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals–here, educational diversity.
      Minorities get preferential admission to our prison systems.
      But a University's the use of race-sensitive admissions policies is a bridge too far? We need a law to prevent that!

      -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

      by pat bunny on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:06:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think a lot of people agree with AA as a policy (10+ / 0-)

        and still understand that a ban on AA is constitutional.  SCOTUS isn't there to decide what's good as a matter of policy.    

        •  Republicans ignore "general welfare" (0+ / 0-)

          too.

          It's a very convenient thing for many.

          Trust, but verify. - Reagan
          Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

          When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

          by Words In Action on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:09:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Funny how nothing effective is ever offered in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          One Pissed Off Liberal, CenPhx

          its place by those who want to eliminate it.

          As if discrimination no longer exists or AA hasn't helped over the past five decades.

          This is exactly why the Democratic Party is NOT a good tool for avoiding the worse effects of the Republican Party. We get the worse effects of Class War (oligarchy), Climate War, the War on Individual Rights and War for its own sake either way.

          Trust, but verify. - Reagan
          Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

          When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

          by Words In Action on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:13:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Endorsing discrimination is not the same (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, mconvente, Victor Ward

        ... as protecting minorities from actual discrimination. Let's re-implement the Voting Rights Act. Let's ban voter ID laws. Let's end Stand your Ground. However, the government should NOT be actively implementing laws that give people a preference because they have a particular skin color or ethnicity.

        •  The entire legal (4+ / 0-)

          system as it currently exists gives people of "color" (white)  

          a preference because they have a particular skin color or ethnicity.

          No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

          by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:36:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But you cannot solve discrimination ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            with more discrimination.

            •  No but you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action

              can require the playing field be level. And it is not discrimination to allow those disenfranchised to be considered equally, which means being required to consider them at all. Like the NFL's Rooney Rule...

              No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

              by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:31:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You keep saying this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, Words In Action

              as if it is some sort of natural truism.

              When, in fact, it is just a sentence that means nothing.

              Of course you can solve discrimination with discrimination. If there is systematic discrimination artificially keeping PoC out of large portions of our society and culture, then implementing policies to counter-act that systemic discrimination can help lessen the effects of those systematic factors.

              For example, try to explain how this chart does not show systematic discriminatory effects:

              http://www.aps.org/...

              extra points if you can do so without sounding like a racist.

              •  The BGLT movement ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                ... hasn't asked for affirmative action that favors them. They seem to be advancing their cause better than black people are.

                •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Words In Action, CenPhx

                  I'm one of those people in the "BGLT movement" (which sounds like a sandwich, btw).  I wasn't aware that we were advancing our cause better than black people.

                  Black people at least enjoy antidiscrimination protections in federal law, something we LGBTs lack.  Black people also have been recognized as a suspect class under the Constitution, which we gay and trans folks haven't achieved.  

                  So please don't go making assumptions about what the LGBT movement has and hasn't achieved.  You don't seem terribly well informed about the subject.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:20:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The pace of change ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Victor Ward

                    35 years ago, BGLT rights weren't even on the radar. Then the AIDS crisis hit ... need I say more.

                    Now gay people have marriage/coupling rights in about 20 states, antidiscrimination laws in a number of states. Two Federal Circuit courts have ruled that BGLT status is quasi-suspect. DADT has been repealed. The Senate approved ENDA. The House would approve it if not for the current speaker of the House.

                    I could go on.

                    I didn't claim that the BGLT movement has met all of its goals, but progress has been made in a short time. Maybe people of color should model the tactics used by the BGLT movement.

                    PS My work in support of BGLT rights is extensive and documented.

                    •  You have it exactly backwards. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Words In Action, CenPhx
                      Maybe people of color should model the tactics used by the BGLT [sic] movement.
                      The LGBT movement has, for a long time, been learning from the success of the African-American civil rights movement.  It's not the other way around.

                      As for your documented work, I'm not aware of it.  And no, you don't need to say much to me about the AIDS crisis.  I'm one of the co-administrators of the HIV/AIDS Action group here on DK.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:47:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not really sure what your argument is (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Words In Action, CenPhx

                  so let me try to understand it:

                  BGLT are discriminated against; people are warming up to the idea that marriage equality is a civil rights issue;

                  therefore systemic racism against black people is not a problem.

                  Is that about it?

                  I noticed you had nothing to say about that chart so I'll ask you directly.

                  How do you explain the massive under-representation of blacks, hispanics, and native americans across entire ranges of higher education fields?

            •  But it can be a form of intermediate patch/relief (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, CenPhx

              until a more concrete solution is devised.

    •  Courage (0+ / 0-)

      ... to stand up for what is right even when the majority is wrong.

      •  Pfft. It takes no courage at all to serve yourself (0+ / 0-)

        Trust, but verify. - Reagan
        Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

        When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

        by Words In Action on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:14:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  anyone can vote in polls here (7+ / 0-)

      so this result does not necessarily reflect the views of Kossaks - though reading some of the comments today from a few folks has been an eye-opener.

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:04:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

      I went to the poll just to see the results.

      And POC are amongst "friends" here.  

  •  Pardon the dissenting opionion on your poll... (6+ / 0-)

    but where is the "Hell No" option on your poll?

    The decisions should have struck down legacy admission preferences at state universities as well.  And "bought" admissions from donors to all colleges and universities.  And all of the other mechanisms for affirmative action for the white, rich, and male.

    Framing it as a process issue was a huge dodge.  It was a blatant GOTV referendum for the public offices at issue in a state that is increasingly racist.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:33:55 PM PDT

    •  Elections have consequences. (4+ / 0-)

      If you wanted the referendum defeated, you should have turned out your voters. Don't go crying to the courts everytime you lose an election.

      >>> And "bought" admissions from donors to all colleges and universities.

      ... except that alumni status and donation preferences do not violate the 14th Amendment. If think those types of preferences are bad, put forward your own petition and get it approved.

      >>> And all of the other mechanisms for affirmative action for the white, rich, and male.

      Nice try. However, minorities can obtain alumni status and donation preferences as well. Nothing is stopping African Americans from making generous donations or Hispanics from studying hard and obtaining admission the old fashioned way ... by earning it.

      •  Since states have (7+ / 0-)

        consistently used voter suppression to discriminate - as Michigan has and is doing - your "point" is invalid.

        And this remark is bigoted

        Nothing is stopping African Americans from making generous donations or Hispanics from studying hard and obtaining admission the old fashioned way ... by earning it.
        which I pointed out to you when you linked to it elsewhere

        "Hispanics from studying hard"  WTF.

        "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

        by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:09:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Answer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward

          >>> consistently used voter suppression to discriminate - as Michigan has and is doing - your "point" is invalid.

          There is a difference between current efforts to suppress minority voting and repealing AA programs. The former increases race-based discrimination, and the latter decreases it.

          >>> what makes you think Hispanics don't study hard?

          I'm sure many do and that many don't. The statement does not imply laziness. As race neutral admission committees admit more underrepresented minorities (URMs) based on merit, URMs will be able to reap the advantages of alumni status and donation status.

          The the word choice "old-fashioned way" was improper.

        •  I'd have voted against this amendment, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical

          but on the question of whether there's a reordering of the political process, a voter suppression law strikes me as categorically different from university admission policy.  I think Justice Breyer's right that Affirmative Action is constitutional in most instances (despite the arguments from some of the other justices), but the reordering doctrine should have a stronger connection to the voting process, itself, to justify overturning a state referendum.  Diversity preferences are the better policy, but they're not constitutionally required, and Justice Sotomayor's dissent is powerful, rhetorically, but it's also shoehorning facts into a doctrine that doesn't quite fit them.  

          The fact that some people here argue the majority's point very badly does not invalidate the judgment of the Court.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 08:37:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Qualified is a highly subjective term (5+ / 0-)

    I work in the Bay Area where the majority of the middle managers at least in engineering are Asian.

    Ten candidates apply for the job of which at least eight can do the job exceptionally well. Six Asians and two white guys. The Asian manager can only pick one and nine out of ten times he picks the Asian guy.
    The only time he picks the white guy is when he consciously thinks about the diversity of his team and how HR and the company at large might perceive him given that hes had to attend those diversity classes that HR puts on.

    This is affirmative action and its needed in any diverse society.
    I would love to see the republicans that are so happy about this decision try to apply for some of those high paying jobs in the Bay Area. They might start to see things a little differently.

  •  22% Here Agree With this Decision? (6+ / 0-)

    This is really depressing. So that means there're white men who think affirmative action is wrong? I'm always skeptical about liberal white men.
    I'm going to graduate with the highest GPA in my master in accounting class and yet most white people look at me with skepticism as if some white guy wrote my exams for me. There was a case a professor was giving out our first mid-term papers to us and  was freaking shocked I had the highest score. Mid-term II, this professor set his eyes on me throughout the exam time and I came out with the highest score once again.
    Since that time I have been reluctant to take classes taught by white professors especially their men cohorts. I think white women generally tend to be more color-blind. Please, don't get me wrong. I know not all liberal white men think this way but there're still some liberal whitemen who still have slave mentality.    Notwithstanding that I've had a white professor who was very good and fair.
    I wont be surprise to face hurdles finding a job despite my high GPA because only a few people will believe I made those grades on merit. I've found to my chagrin how embedded white privilege is in this country. There're a research out that shows black people with college degrees earns almost the same lifetime income as whites with high school degrees. There's an incipient racism embedded in the system. And these are some of the things affirmative action tries to correct.

    •  "I'm always skeptical about liberal white men." (5+ / 0-)

      Thanks for proving my point.

      >>> Please, don't get me wrong. I know not all liberal white men think this way but there're still some liberal whitemen who still have slave mentality.

      I'm surprised that you didn't say, "Some of my best friends are white!"

    •  I think AA is a good policy, but I think (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shifty18, Loge, UberFubarius, Victor Ward

      a ban on it is constitutional.  SCOTUS doesn't exist to determine what's good policy—they decide what the law IS.  

      •  You are potently wrong! (0+ / 0-)

        The Court is supposed to "protect" minorities against majority. That is why you don't put civil rights issues to vote. The same way I'm against putting the gay marriage issue to vote, the same way I think putting an issue that affect minority segment of the population to vote is wrong and unconstitutional and a different composition of the Court would have issued different verdict. What is happening is the majority population using the power of their numbers to undermine racial minorities. What black people are going through in this country is very serious and I don't think white people can endure a tenth of that. A case in point is what happened in South Africa. When apartheid was abolished many a white people were so paranoid about what will happen to them and many of them started leaving the country to their ancestral home only to find out that what they meted out to the blacks were not going to be measured out to them. A friend told me white people can't even withstand minimal economic hardship like  sharp increases in petroleum products.
        The Robert Court is set to dismantle anything that helps minorities especially blacks so I wasn't surprised at the ruling. Until the composition of the Court changes, there's no hope for blacks in his country. Even that I'm not sure because there're still some liberal whites who also hold racial animosity against blacks.

    •  This (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn
      I wont be surprise to face hurdles finding a job despite my high GPA because only a few people will believe I made those grades on merit.
      POC are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      I have had similar experiences in HS and college.  I was accused of buying one of my term papers because I couldn't possibly have written it. I guess since it wasn't written in ebonics, it raised a red flag.  

      Being the only black face in a sea of white in class can many times not be a good time.

      These are the things that some people here need to understand.  I almost wish there was a time machine of sorts, so we could switch places and send them back to walk in POC shoes so they can experience first hand what it is really like.

  •  Remove racism root and branch (5+ / 0-)

    ... and we cannot do that until the government stops discriminating. Keeping affirmative action and ending racism are inherently incompatible positions. Arguing otherwise is like claiming up is down or that left is right. Argue with me all you want, but AA supporters cannot overcome that flaw in their position.

    The first time the Supreme Court upheld a government policy as "meeting strict scrutiny" was when it rubber stamped the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Go to Japantown in SF and tell someone that was morally just.

    Yes. This is the one place where I vehemently disagree with most liberals. Rant about about how I should pack it up and move to RedState if you want, but my liberal bona fides are deep and strong.

    •  the argument from us is not "flawed (12+ / 0-)

      the flaw is that we still live under a system in which racism is deeply embedded.

      Corrective measures cannot erase systemic racism in a handful of decades.

      As long as racial income inequality, defacto segregation in schools and housing exists, along with unequal protection under the criminal injustice system - your argument has zero standing with me.

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:14:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wish I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez

        could rec this 1000x...

        No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

        by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:43:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alternative solutions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward
        As long as racial income inequality, defacto segregation in schools and housing exists, along with unequal protection under the criminal injustice system - your argument has zero standing with me.
        -- Income inequality can be solved with higher taxes, reducing the cost of attending college, providing minorities more opportunities to learn without giving AA in admission, returning welfare as we knew it before Clinton, and universal access to medical care.

        -- Housing and education: as minorities increase their economic power, they will be able to afford to live in places that have higher rents and home prices. That also solves for school segregation.

        -- Criminal justice: I'm less familiar with inequities in the  criminal justice system. However, I do realize that the cocaine/crack sentencing disparity is being dealt with. A step in the right direction. Also, decreasing economic inequalities should help.

        I think a lot of white racial animus comes from the fear that the economy is a zero-sum game, and gains by minorities guarantees that whites will fall behind. Easing that fear with greater opportunity across the board should alivate whose fears.

        •  Well this is wishful thinking: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Denise Oliver Velez
          [A]s minorities increase their economic power, they will be able to afford to live in places that have higher rents and home prices. That also solves for school segregation.
          And how are minorities supposed to pull this off when, as Denise correctly points out, they are still subjected to systemic racism?  You also assume that there will be no "white flight" when minorities move into "places that have higher rents and home prices."  Historical experience suggests that's a very dubious assumption.

          At least you admit you don't know much about this:

          I'm less familiar with inequities in the  criminal justice system.

          Fortunately, you're discussing the topic with Denise, who's written quite extensively on that topic.  I suggest you peruse her list of diaries so that you can educate yourself on just how big a problem this is and how far it extends beyond just the cocaine/crack cocaine sentencing disparity.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:52:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's a patch. (0+ / 0-)

      It's an important patch while we address the deeper issue.
      However, I do recognize that this case, as is, makes it next to impossible for AA to survive as is.
      For one, we're not talking about a constitutionally suspect policy that has voter support (or voter don't care), as it was with (Grutter v. Bollinger). All SC at the time needed is to find a reason to say that Constitution doesn't forbid it.

      We're talking about a law, passed by voters, to ban said action and the SC having to find a reason to forbid that law.

  •  Statistics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, ozsea1

    Proof that SCOTUS is wrong are statistics beginning with those in jail.  Next comes unemployment and chronic poverty in ethnic areas.  SCOTUS doesn't care about race discrimination.  Sotomayer, Kagen and Ginsburg are minorities. Those here who approve of SCOTUS have probably never experienced personal rejection due to race or prejudice.  Before Reagan Asians in the Bay Area who always hire Asians would be asked to modify their hiring practices.  Since Reagan government has been gutted with the  hope of "white power" that wins elections for Republicans.

  •  Everybody talks about blacks not getting into (4+ / 0-)

    college and I guess I sympathize to an extent, but I want to know what a rich white man has got to do to get into prison where all of your living expenses are paid, including healthcare and cable.  Seriously, rich white men are underrepresented in prison because blacks get special priviliges ahead of the pack in prison admissions.  

  •  Thanks nt (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:21:47 AM PDT

  •  Poll is misleading (0+ / 0-)

    See Breyer's concurrence.  I think Michigan probably can pass an amendment to bar racial preferences in admissions, but that doesn't mean that Michigan should.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:07:52 AM PDT

  •  Sometimes, I ruminate on (0+ / 0-)

    what will happen with affirmative action when whites are the minority population in the U.S.  I would assume that a lot of people currently against it will change their minds.  Who knows.

    But that day is coming, and not too many decades from now.  We might not live to see it but our kids will.

  •  It seems to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny

    that a lot of people think that GPA and/or standardized test scores should be the one and only metric by which applicants are judged wrt college admissions. My question is, why? And those very same folks, strangely, are usually OK with "legacy" admissions policies as well as preferences for children of major donors. Again, why? Neither of these criteria have any bearing on aptitude or prospects for success.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:25:34 AM PDT

  •  another success for rw radio (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aznavy

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:42:33 AM PDT

    •  years and years in the making. coordinated (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aznavy

      unchallenged repetition of pure bullshit from 1200 radio stations to 50 million people a week made this possible more than any other factor.

      including 'electing' the 'president' who put alito and roberts through, and 'fluking' anita hill to get clarence thomas through

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:46:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  kkk-lite radio -the rationalizations used for (0+ / 0-)

        decades on RW radio to create the constituencies and  basis for bringing this to the supremes and arguing for it are racist crap, and the it makes the fact that over 100 of our major universities and colleges broadcast sports on these kkk-lite stations with the excuse they dont endorse them is outrageous and unacceptable.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:33:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Noted with irony - one of the best texts on AA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny, aznavy

    (Affirmative Action) policies and the benefits they can bring to an institution of higher learning was written by Umich alum Dr. James L. Curtis. (PDF) His writing focused on medical school admissions.

    It is worth reading the publicly available outtake from the entire book for the clarity with which some myths about affirmative action are punctured.

    it is worth reading because it states, positively, the case for societal benefit accruing from their continued use.

    It is worth noting that it was written barely ten years ago, (2003) three years prior to the legislative mire that sought to undercut affirmative action policies in Michigan, and Texas, and elsewhere.

    Dr. Curtis, along with his wife are remembered at UMich at the Vivian A. and James L. CurtisSchool of Social Work Training and Research Center.

  •  as has been said about democracy... (0+ / 0-)

    affirmative action is the worst system, except for all the other systems that were tried before it.

    until we have something resembling parity, where non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-straight people are represented in colleges and businesses in a way that looks like the population at large, we need affirmative action.  there may come a time when it is no longer needed, but that time is not now.

    affirmative action has never been about "giving" positions to people of color "undeservedly".  it has been about making sure that disadvantaged minorities get a hand up so that future generations will no longer be disadvantaged.

    this ruling by the SCOTUS undermines the advances we had tried to make toward a more equal nation and gives the "good old boy" networks in Michigan the cover they wanted to go back to passing over minority candidates as they had done before affirmative action policies were introduced.

  •  I am kind of curious... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FogCityJohn

    about the 134 members of this community who fail to see the disadvantages that black and Latinos face in our society.  You people have got to be fucking kidding me.  Even as a non-economically disadvantaged ethnic background (mixed race Korean/White), it is painfully obvious that there are people in this country who are disadvantaged due to historical, institutional racism.  If you deny it, you are, in the words of Louis CK, "a fucking asshole."

    "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

    by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:17:16 AM PDT

    •  Louis CK on being white... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:47:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please listen... (0+ / 0-)

        to the entire thing before judging his comments.  

        "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

        by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 09:47:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know there are racial disparities. (0+ / 0-)

      However, the existence of socially pervasive racism is not sufficient justification for adopting policies that are discriminatory and violate the 14th Amendment.

      •  White men do the picking so things won't change (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        because America is about white men first, last & always. Everyone else can fuck off since white people don't fix anything for anybody without getting a payoff.

        Pretending that there isn't discrimination is NOT the same as no discrimination.the constitution is supposed to protect us from the majority. That is a lie.

        Redstate is calling you or maybe some libertarian shit site.

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 04:55:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since race-based admissions ended in Calif (0+ / 0-)

          whites are now in the minority at the University of California.  It is Asian students who have most benefited, not whites.  And it is Asian voters who most strongly oppose re-instituting race-based admission criteria.

          I just went on a week-log tour of California colleges with my son.  We did not meet a single white male admissions officer, evil or otherwise.

          •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

            because the Asian voting bloc in CA has such a huge impact on state-wide initiatives.  They are, according to the Census Bureau, 13% of CA's population.  So yeah, it is Asians blocking AA in admissions for CA public universities.  

            /snark

            "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

            by cardboardurinal on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 10:22:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No need to /snark (0+ / 0-)

              There are twice as many Asians as blacks in California.  

              Perhaps this article from yesterday will prove enlightening:

              California Bill Reignites Affirmative Action Fight

              Nearly 20 years after California became the first state to ban the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions, a proposal to reinstate affirmative action has sparked a backlash that is forging a new divide in the state's powerful Democratic Party and creating opportunity for conservatives.

              The debate is unfolding in the nation's most populous and most ethnically diverse state as an unrelated U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholds voters' rights to decide whether racial considerations should factor into university selections.

              The California proposal would allow voters to rescind their state's affirmative action ban, but unexpected pushback from families of Asian descent who mobilized through Chinese-language media, staged rallies and organized letter-writing campaigns has all but killed the measure this year.

              "I was surprised," said Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina, the author of the bill. "I didn't expect it."

              Asian-American students are enrolled at many of California's top schools in numbers far greater than their proportion of the state's population. Critics of Hernandez's plan worry that qualified students would be dismissed simply because of their ethnicity.

              The ensuing debate has reopened an old fissure over the role of race in college admissions, divided Democrats along racial lines and created an opportunity for the California GOP.

    •  I'm surprised you're surprised. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cardboardurinal, a2nite

      Especially since your UID indicates you've been around here for quite a while.

      There's always been a big faction of denialists on this site when it comes to racism.  This denialism takes many forms, some of which are subtle and some of which are not.  The comments to this diary are a good example of one form -- the "reverse racism" or false equivalence form.

      Those adhering to this view will admit that racism exists, although their definition of it tends to be rather narrow.  But after making that verbal genuflection, they'll then insist that things like race-sensitive hiring or admissions policies constitute the type of "racial discrimination" prohibited by the equal protection clause.  

      Of course, such policies are designed to remedy this country's appalling history of discrimination against its nonwhite citizens, and they do so only by permitting employers and educational institutions to consider race as one factor.  To the false equivalence folks, though, this is just as evil as slavery or Jim Crow, and it should be just as constitutionally suspect.

      They therefore demand we adhere to a "colorblind" view of the Constitution in a society that is not in the least colorblind in fact.  We may not attempt to remedy actual, historical, and continuing racism because doing so might pose some minor inconvenience to white people.

      It's remarkable how many white liberals cling so desperately to white privilege.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:56:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        it is less clinging to white privilege and more denying it exists.  

        "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

        by cardboardurinal on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:10:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If voters can make taking (0+ / 0-)

    race or ethnicity into account for admissions illegal, can't voters make legacy status, sports or musical accomplishment, or geographic location an illegal factor, too?

  •  Affirmative Action (0+ / 0-)

    Our Founding Fathers did not say only whites can go to college, or get good jobs. They said all people in the Constitution. Until all people have equal opportunity to better their lives we still need Affirmative Action. Besides affirmative action does not only help racial minorities, it has helped women too. It is interesting that some of the people who oppose affirmative action benefited from it. I am thankful that we have Sonja Sotomeyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court. The men on the supreme court continue to protect their interests and not the people of this country.

  •  All the white guys... (0+ / 0-)

    Soo...basically all the white guys, including Justice Thomas, wrote the majority opinion since they had no worries in getting into college, etc.

    Justice Sotomayer (w/Ginsberg concurring) does understand as that's the process that actually benefited her. Justice Thomas just denies it all.

  •  Presented without comment. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. ~ Adelaide Proctor

    by mikejay611 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 01:50:19 PM PDT

  •  My last word. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, Be Skeptical

    I'm getting tired of this thread and being compared to Rush Limbaugh. This will be my last post before turning to other work.

    The USA has a two party system. You can vote for the Democrats of the Republicans. Overall, I agree with Democrats on a wide array of issues. In order to work with the Democrats, I accept that many politicians I vote for will support affirmative action even though I do not. In the end, the Democratic vision of governance is far superior than the one offered by the Republicans.

    Moreover, despite my disagreement with other liberals on one aspect of civil rights, I still find the liberal Democratic view of civil rights to be far superior to that offered by the Republicans. AA is bad, but the GOP's plans for minorities is sooooooo much worse.

    Disliking AA doesn't make me a bad Democrat or a bad progressive. It just means I disagree on one issue.

    •  I agree! (0+ / 0-)

      Dean, Your position is exactly my position. I toe the party line on about 90% of the issues but this particular issue has always stuck in my craw. I try, in my own life, to be fair to everyone, never prejudging anyone based on external factors. I agree with M. L King that the important thing is the content of one's character. Discrimination is wrong, period, no matter who is advantaged or disadvantaged. Treat everyone in the same manner and, when you have to make judgments, make judgments about people based on their actions. When I had my own business I always hired the person who I felt best met the qualifications of the job, regardless of their ethnicity or any of the other factors considered by Affirmative Action legislation. Doing this, I ended up with a very diverse workforce and a successful organization.

      •  I'm happy that you always hire the best person for (0+ / 0-)

        the job regardless of skin color. However, sometimes what one think is the best person can be very subjective. For instance, there are situations that a person considering hiring the most qualified person tend to favor people of their race unconsciously. It's very real unless you live in an alternate universe.
        Most white people who are not really racists but do carry some level of prejudice. There a microbiology  professor in my school who is liberal as you can get but was surprised when a Nigerian student in his class scored full marks in his microbiology paper because he claimed no student has ever scored that high marks in his paper. The friend told me he could tell from his demeanor when he found out to his chagrin. This is what I'm saying: I know most liberal white men are without any prejudice but there're some who share similar views as their cohorts conservatives. Most blacks can tel if your are racist just by looking at your demeanor in several situation. That is what most white people don't understand because they have not been in a black man's position.
        If you are white in the US, thank your God. You have "WHITE PRIVILEGE." If your are an Asian, you also get a bit of that. If you are black, better luck next time (maybe if there's life after death you may return to the earth as maybe Asian or white unless in God's design, you have to come back still as a black person).
        Although research has shown that first generation African and Asian immigrants have performed similar in terms of performance at colleges, there is still a deep-seated belief that Asians are smarter because many Americans have not gone to look for what is happening on the ground; instead they have lazily relied on just the percentage of Asians in ivy-league colleges in the US as a measure of their superior academic achievement. And, yet the person who did the research I'm referring to is an Asian who was on MSNBC about a month ago. She specifically mentioned first generation Ghanaian and Nigerian Americans achieving superior performance in colleges compared to even Asians. She also opined that 2nd + generation Asians perform equally as whites. So the problem lies in some deep-seated socio-politico-economic issues in the US -- family values. Family values in the US tend to be lax as compared to Asian and African values. Also, in Asia and Africa, parents put lot pressure on their kids to perform in school. For instance, in Africa, parents and teachers do not spare the rod as the Good Book, the Bible, says "spare the rod and spoil the child."
        The only reason it appeared Asians dominate in ivy-league colleges is due to their numbers (Indian and China = 2.3 billion people and counting) and also the Chinese and Indian governments are investing a lot in technology unparalleled in Africa.
        Another area is the college admission tests. Most Asians perform better than anybody else in these college admission tests. However, they don't do same in the classroom. I'm not saying they are not doing well at all. What I'm saying is that their GRE, GMAT, MCAT scores are not measuring up with their performance in school. While Africans tend to outperform their test scores, most Asians perform below that. I'm not surprised because there are already lots of research that have found out that there is little correlation between these college admission test scores and college achievement/performance. However, a student in-class performance has a stronger positive correlation with their performance in their previous school work.

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    Until the educational system in this country starting in kindergarten through high school is a level playing field for ALL students I do believe affirmative action is a necessary evil. The playing field is NOT level. It wasn't level 40 years ago when I was in high school and little has changed. In fact things have gotten worse. With the prevalence of schools for profit things have not improved. In fact where I live a public school was wrested away from the public school system and given to a private company. Guess what, for two months in a row this company did not pay their teachers on time. They had to get an advance from the state. I believe they should have been forced to eat it and made less profit. But no, we can't have that can we. Thanks to Rethuglicans school budgets across the country have been slashed, only to enrich the pockets of for profit schools. Until we properly fund our public schools and divorce ourselves from for profit boondoggles affirmative action may be the only way a minority student has a glimmer of a chance of attending college.

  •  I have to disagree... (0+ / 0-)

    I know that I am swimming against the tide here, but I agree with the court and the voters of Michigan. Mr. Spock would likely say, "It is illogical to think that you can end discrimination by discriminating."

    •  I know right! (0+ / 0-)

      Next thing people will tell me that we should use disease to fight disease.

      Sheesh!

      Or more seriously, what makes you think that a simplistic platitude is any substitute for thoughtful, outcome-based policy?

    •  You sound just like John Roberts. (0+ / 0-)

      Like so many people, you've swallowed the false equivalence argument hook, line, and sinker.

      Trying to claim that race-sensitive hiring and admissions policies are "discrimination" in the same sense that slavery and Jim Crow were discrimination ignores this country's history and the continuing effects of systemic racism.  It's worse than trying to compare apples and oranges.  It's more like comparing apples and octopuses.

      Maybe one day white people in this country will be willing to face historical reality.  But after reading the comments on this supposedly "progressive" site, I'm not hopeful.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:53:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem, (0+ / 0-)

    and this is always the case, is the 'lawyerly' way they write up these 'voter-approved' snow jobs.  Every time they want to put something over on the voters, they let the voters decide.  But the voters are incapable of deciphering the convoluted lawyer-talk, where up means down, and no means yes.  If contracts are supposed to be written in plain English, then so should voting proposals.

  •  Excerpting Judicial Dissents (0+ / 0-)

    This article does no favor to the point it would like to make by highlighting only some very weak arguments from the dissent.

    People naturally assume that you will pick the strongest arguments in order to make your point.  If it looks like what you have chosen are the strongest arguments, but in absolute  terms they are very weak, then it is easy to write-off the dissent.

    Some of the excerpts from the other comments are more powerful than the ones originally chosen for the article.

    If you are going to defend the liberal/progressive view, please try to stick to the strong arguments.  Otherwise, you may do more damage to the cause than you do good.

  •  Republican white men (0+ / 0-)

    what difference does affirmative action mean to them...
    not a damn thing!.  It just matters to the rest of us.

    •  Democratic White Men (0+ / 0-)

      I think some democratic white men also share the similar views except social issues like gay marriage, abortion and a few others. Apart from social issues, lots of liberal white men tend to have similar views when it comes to issues of race.
      Have you asked yourself why majority of senate democrats voted for Roberts although he also did a pro bono case involving a mass killer on death row but when it came to Debo Adegbile some of them voted against Adegbile. One notable one was Chris Coons and if you listen to Sen. Tom Harkins response after that vote on the senate floor underpin the problem some liberal white democrats have when it comes to race. I don't think a senator like Chris Coons will have a problem in his re-election bid if he voted for Adegbile but yet he voted against him. I used to like him but since that day, I have lost all respect for him.

  •  Roberts Provided the Lamest and Weakest Rationale (0+ / 0-)

    CJ Roberts Provided the lamest and weakest rationale for his decision. Compare the following two reasons given by Roberts and Sotomayor:

    "[T]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination." Sotomayor.

     "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Roberts.

    It appears CJ Roberts has race issues so he tried to find whatever to support his overarching desire to dismantle all structures erected to repair centuries of racial injustices in the US.

  •  Minorities don't deserve "an even playing field?" (0+ / 0-)
Thumb, Alumbrados, Sylv, fcvaguy, karlpk, Shockwave, Fabienne, dsb, hubcap, rhp, mrblifil, Ignacio Magaloni, splashy, antirove, sidnora, aitchdee, wader, psnyder, TexDem, pat bunny, kj in missouri, Steven Payne, papercut, walkshills, zerelda, Sembtex, Hillbilly Dem, parryander, Emmy, Josiah Bartlett, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, CTPatriot, OpherGopher, grimjc, dewtx, Laurence Lewis, owlbear1, where4art, GreyHawk, markdd, Sandino, Tool, FindingMyVoice, peacestpete, kathny, noweasels, begone, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, Mr Bojangles, bastrop, fou, philipmerrill, oakroyd, CA Nana, blueoregon, OHdog, pfiore8, peagreen, Deadicated Marxist, LillithMc, Blue State 68, Dave in Northridge, JML9999, sable, keyscritter, South Park Democrat, wayoutinthestix, Sharon Wraight, BYw, JamieG from Md, dmhlt 66, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, J M F, ceebee7, juca, notrouble, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Keith Pickering, stevenwag, sfarkash, kingfishstew, Words In Action, BlueOak, Just Bob, rb137, FogCityJohn, womankind, ItsSimpleSimon, DrTerwilliker, MsGrin, Oh Mary Oh, no way lack of brain, annieli, tharu1, kerflooey, ozsea1, Captain Pants, slowbutsure, Boston Beans, thomask, BarackStarObama, LSmith, Grandma Susie, worldlotus, blue muon, friendjudy, Laurel in CA, jacey, i saw an old tree today, bluezen, TheLizardKing, Chrislove, a2nite, Farkletoo, peachcreek, MartyM, Jimmy D 84, aznavy, oldpotsmuggler, etherealfire, ItsaMathJoke, Villanova Rhodes, Chaddiwicker, jusjtim35, HedwigKos, Alhambra, bob152, Patango, LilithGardener, eagleray, SusiesPurl, alx9090, JayyVee, Skyye, IsaacKuo, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, liberaldad2, BMScott, bobcat41702

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site