|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 15, 2014 11:29:35 GMT
Whereas I would certainly agree that the "ditch digger" is most unlikely to become a "brain surgeon," the "bank teller, retail clerk or travel agent" mentioned in the article you cited might indeed learn to do plumbing, IT management, or journalism (in one form or another). Or any of many other possibilities. This is clearly not a matter of ideology--just a matter of getting things correct--but isn't the penalty for premature withdrawal fron a 401(k) just 10 percent (plus taxes, of course), rather than 20 percent? (True, if one is in the 10 percent tax bracket, that could amount to a total of 20 percent--although the taxes are not really a penalty, as they would have to be paid eventually, anyway.) As for our electing too many "extremists," I doubt that either Rand Paul (whom you mentioned) or Bernie Sanders (whom I mentioned) would regard themselves as extremist. People of conviction--whether on the right or the left portion of the political spectrum--are, just by definition, principled. And that is a very good thing, in my opinion. We just have too few politicians who place principle ahead of career ambitions.
The problem as noted by the Federal Reserve study is that there are fewer middle income jobs which could represent those "plumbing, IT management, or journalism" jobs that are already filled by existing workers with other qualified workers waiting in line for openings (because of the "unemployment" that the Federal Reserve is to some degree responsible for. The "jobs" that are lost don't magically exist just because someone trains for them and there are only so many middle income jobs and they're basically filled. If one person manages to advance into a middle income job it just results in current middle income person moving back down the economic ladder to fill the position that person advancing vacated. It's a zero gain proposition.
Regardless of composition a 20% loss of principle is huge IMHO.
The problem I tend to see is that the "convictions" of politicans are often unprincipled. For example Rand Paul's commitment to crony capitalism (unfair taxation designed to favor the wealthy) and his unwillingness to balance the US budget (fiscally irresponsibility of government) isn't very principled IMO. I've actually found "liberals" to have more "principles" but they fail based upon their proposals based upon principle. Liberals tend to fit into "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" category as opposed to being unprincipled.
Perhaps I'm too hard on the "social-conservatives" but the fact that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly a party of WASP males is rather telling. Do you realizes that with Canter's departure that there will only be White Christan Republicans in Congress with the exception of one black Senator that was appointed and not elected?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 1:38:12 GMT
Whereas I would certainly agree that the "ditch digger" is most unlikely to become a "brain surgeon," the "bank teller, retail clerk or travel agent" mentioned in the article you cited might indeed learn to do plumbing, IT management, or journalism (in one form or another). Or any of many other possibilities. This is clearly not a matter of ideology--just a matter of getting things correct--but isn't the penalty for premature withdrawal fron a 401(k) just 10 percent (plus taxes, of course), rather than 20 percent? (True, if one is in the 10 percent tax bracket, that could amount to a total of 20 percent--although the taxes are not really a penalty, as they would have to be paid eventually, anyway.) As for our electing too many "extremists," I doubt that either Rand Paul (whom you mentioned) or Bernie Sanders (whom I mentioned) would regard themselves as extremist. People of conviction--whether on the right or the left portion of the political spectrum--are, just by definition, principled. And that is a very good thing, in my opinion. We just have too few politicians who place principle ahead of career ambitions.
The problem as noted by the Federal Reserve study is that there are fewer middle income jobs which could represent those "plumbing, IT management, or journalism" jobs that are already filled by existing workers with other qualified workers waiting in line for openings (because of the "unemployment" that the Federal Reserve is to some degree responsible for. The "jobs" that are lost don't magically exist just because someone trains for them and there are only so many middle income jobs and they're basically filled. If one person manages to advance into a middle income job it just results in current middle income person moving back down the economic ladder to fill the position that person advancing vacated. It's a zero gain proposition.
Regardless of composition a 20% loss of principle is huge IMHO.
The problem I tend to see is that the "convictions" of politicans are often unprincipled. For example Rand Paul's commitment to crony capitalism (unfair taxation designed to favor the wealthy) and his unwillingness to balance the US budget (fiscally irresponsibility of government) isn't very principled IMO. I've actually found "liberals" to have more "principles" but they fail based upon their proposals based upon principle. Liberals tend to fit into "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" category as opposed to being unprincipled.
Perhaps I'm too hard on the "social-conservatives" but the fact that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly a party of WASP males is rather telling. Do you realizes that with Canter's departure that there will only be White Christan Republicans in Congress with the exception of one black Senator that was appointed and not elected?
No, middle income jobs do not "magically exist." But they have existed for a very long time now, without the aid of magic. And why should one person's advancing to such a job automatically result in the loss of that same job by someone else? It seems much more probable that the person whose job is being filled is either moving on to bigger and better things, or else retiring. One may certainly disagree with some of Rand Paul's policy positions (as I indeed do); but that is very different from claiming that he is "unprincipled." I certainly do not believe that the very low percentage of non-WASPs in Congress is indicative of any uncongeniality to these people on the part of the Republican establishment. Rather, it is probably indicative of the fact that many (especially among African-Americans) are shamed and bullied by the politically correct left into identifying with the Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 16, 2014 8:19:13 GMT
No, middle income jobs do not "magically exist." But they have existed for a very long time now, without the aid of magic. And why should one person's advancing to such a job automatically result in the loss of that same job by someone else? It seems much more probable that the person whose job is being filled is either moving on to bigger and better things, or else retiring.
That was true when we grew up and entered the workforce but it's no longer true. Today the loss of middle income jobs is greater than the attrition created by retirement and advancemment. In fact there are fewer middle income jobs than there were people working in them according to the Federal Reserve study. Some did manage to advance but the majority have been forced into lower income jobs. There aren't any middle income jobs for a low income person to advance into statistically. There are anecdotal exceptions but they don't matter statistically.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 16, 2014 8:22:41 GMT
I certainly do not believe that the very low percentage of non-WASPs in Congress is indicative of any uncongeniality to these people on the part of the Republican establishment. Rather, it is probably indicative of the fact that many (especially among African-Americans) are shamed and bullied by the politically correct left into identifying with the Democratic Party.
Are you really unaware of the anti-minority political agenda of the Republican Party?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 23:34:54 GMT
No, middle income jobs do not "magically exist." But they have existed for a very long time now, without the aid of magic. And why should one person's advancing to such a job automatically result in the loss of that same job by someone else? It seems much more probable that the person whose job is being filled is either moving on to bigger and better things, or else retiring.
That was true when we grew up and entered the workforce but it's no longer true. Today the loss of middle income jobs is greater than the attrition created by retirement and advancemment. In fact there are fewer middle income jobs than there were people working in them according to the Federal Reserve study. Some did manage to advance but the majority have been forced into lower income jobs. There aren't any middle income jobs for a low income person to advance into statistically. There are anecdotal exceptions but they don't matter statistically.
How might the loss of one job through "attrition" translate into one person's pushing another person out of a job? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 23:37:26 GMT
I certainly do not believe that the very low percentage of non-WASPs in Congress is indicative of any uncongeniality to these people on the part of the Republican establishment. Rather, it is probably indicative of the fact that many (especially among African-Americans) are shamed and bullied by the politically correct left into identifying with the Democratic Party.
Are you really unaware of the anti-minority political agenda of the Republican Party?
What you refer to, loosely (and quite imprecisely), as "the anti-minority agenda of the Republican Party," is largely a matter of support for voter-ID laws and control of our southern border--both of which I strongly support. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 17, 2014 10:43:10 GMT
That was true when we grew up and entered the workforce but it's no longer true. Today the loss of middle income jobs is greater than the attrition created by retirement and advancemment. In fact there are fewer middle income jobs than there were people working in them according to the Federal Reserve study. Some did manage to advance but the majority have been forced into lower income jobs. There aren't any middle income jobs for a low income person to advance into statistically. There are anecdotal exceptions but they don't matter statistically.
How might the loss of one job through "attrition" translate into one person's pushing another person out of a job?
Replacement for attrition (e.g. retirement/death) does not push someone out of a job but the attrition doesn't necessarily create job openings. If we have one job open up because of attrition and one job lost because of a reduction in the number of middle income jobs there is no net gain in job openings. The middle income person that lost a job merely fills the one created by the attrition. No one moves up the economic ladder.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 17, 2014 10:55:42 GMT
Are you really unaware of the anti-minority political agenda of the Republican Party?
What you refer to, loosely (and quite imprecisely), as "the anti-minority agenda of the Republican Party," is largely a matter of support for voter-ID laws and control of our southern border--both of which I strongly support.
Not true. Cutting existing welfare assistance that minorities require because of discrimination in employment/wages is seen as an attack on minorities. Opposition to Affirmative Action that attempts, in a very minor way, to mitigate discrimination in employment is also an attack on minorities. Being pro-wealthy in tax policies is correctly seen as being an attack on the poor and minorities tend to be poor.
Republicans have not (to my knowledge) offered a single proposal that benefits the poor and minorities are predominately poor.
Perhaps the most evident problem is the high level of anti-minority prejudice that studies have established exists within the Republican Party that the Republicans simply deny exists and are attempting to do nothing about. When roughly 8 out of 10 Republicans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice wouldn't it be a good idea for the Republican Party to be addressing this internal problem? We had Republican presidential candidates signing off on a pledge that implied black children would be better off as slaves and Republicans didn't see that as a problem? Seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 17, 2014 20:56:14 GMT
How might the loss of one job through "attrition" translate into one person's pushing another person out of a job?
Replacement for attrition (e.g. retirement/death) does not push someone out of a job but the attrition doesn't necessarily create job openings. If we have one job open up because of attrition and one job lost because of a reduction in the number of middle income jobs there is no net gain in job openings. The middle income person that lost a job merely fills the one created by the attrition. No one moves up the economic ladder.
I agree that attrition "does not push someone out of a job"; and also that it "doesn't necessarily create job openings." I thought, from your previous post, that you were claiming that attrition results in some people being pushed out of jobs, in favor of others. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 17, 2014 21:07:48 GMT
What you refer to, loosely (and quite imprecisely), as "the anti-minority agenda of the Republican Party," is largely a matter of support for voter-ID laws and control of our southern border--both of which I strongly support.
Not true. Cutting existing welfare assistance that minorities require because of discrimination in employment/wages is seen as an attack on minorities. Opposition to Affirmative Action that attempts, in a very minor way, to mitigate discrimination in employment is also an attack on minorities. Being pro-wealthy in tax policies is correctly seen as being an attack on the poor and minorities tend to be poor.
Republicans have not (to my knowledge) offered a single proposal that benefits the poor and minorities are predominately poor.
Perhaps the most evident problem is the high level of anti-minority prejudice that studies have established exists within the Republican Party that the Republicans simply deny exists and are attempting to do nothing about. When roughly 8 out of 10 Republicans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice wouldn't it be a good idea for the Republican Party to be addressing this internal problem? We had Republican presidential candidates signing off on a pledge that implied black children would be better off as slaves and Republicans didn't see that as a problem? Seriously?
I oppose "affirmative action" policies, as they amount to reverse discrimination, in my view--whether you wish to term it that or not. Like most Republicans (and conservatives in general), I strongly believe in a colorblind society. No one should be either penalized or rewarded because of the immutable characteristics of his or her birth. Many more white Americans than black Americans receive welfare assistance; so any attempt to reduce welfare payments should certainly not be seen as an affront to minorities. And what Republican presidential candidate actually pontificated that black Americans would be better off as "slaves"? What, exactly, did he say? (That sounds eerily like what Cliven Bundy, in Utah, asserted a couple of months ago.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 18, 2014 10:20:09 GMT
I oppose "affirmative action" policies, as they amount to reverse discrimination, in my view--whether you wish to term it that or not. Like most Republicans (and conservatives in general), I strongly believe in a colorblind society. No one should be either penalized or rewarded because of the immutable characteristics of his or her birth. Many more white Americans than black Americans receive welfare assistance; so any attempt to reduce welfare payments should certainly not be seen as an affront to minorities. And what Republican presidential candidate actually pontificated that black Americans would be better off as "slaves"? What, exactly, did he say? (That sounds eerily like what Cliven Bundy, in Utah, asserted a couple of months ago.)
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and that is a term that originated in white supermacy racial hate groups such as Stormfront. Either discrimination occurs or it doesn't. There is not now nor has there ever been any statistical evidence of racial discrimination against "white males" in the United States. There are anecdotal cases and many of those don't even pass a test of discrimination because they are often based upon dubious criteria.
There is nothing wrong with desiring a "colorblind" society and when that happens then we won't have to mitigate that fact that we don't live in a "colorblind" society today. African-Americans more so that anyone else would love to live in a colorblind societybut it doesn't exist. When it does exist then "Affirmative Action" cannot be justified and won't be necessary but until we have a "colorblind" society we need to mitigate the fact that it doesn't exist.
This is virtually identical to government welfare assistance. Want to reduce or eliminate it? Then reduce or eliminate poverty that drives the necessity for the assistance.
As a percentage of a demographic minorities are far more dependent upon welfare assistance that white people. Of course there is also a large demographic percentage of white women with children receiving welfare assistance as well which is why Republican policies and agenda on "welfare" is also seen as an attack on women. You need to address the "percentage of the demographic" and not just the raw numbers when you address who's most adversely affected by welfare assistance cuts.
In 2012 all of the Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul signed the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) "Marriage Pledge" where the preamble originally stated (at the time they signed in) that black children were better off being raised under slavery in the South. It didn't directly state that black children today would be better off being raised as slaves but it implied it. It was highly racist and NOM eventually revised the preamble to remove that statement once it was exposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 19, 2014 0:01:20 GMT
I oppose "affirmative action" policies, as they amount to reverse discrimination, in my view--whether you wish to term it that or not. Like most Republicans (and conservatives in general), I strongly believe in a colorblind society. No one should be either penalized or rewarded because of the immutable characteristics of his or her birth. Many more white Americans than black Americans receive welfare assistance; so any attempt to reduce welfare payments should certainly not be seen as an affront to minorities. And what Republican presidential candidate actually pontificated that black Americans would be better off as "slaves"? What, exactly, did he say? (That sounds eerily like what Cliven Bundy, in Utah, asserted a couple of months ago.)
There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and that is a term that originated in white supermacy racial hate groups such as Stormfront. Either discrimination occurs or it doesn't. There is not now nor has there ever been any statistical evidence of racial discrimination against "white males" in the United States. There are anecdotal cases and many of those don't even pass a test of discrimination because they are often based upon dubious criteria.
There is nothing wrong with desiring a "colorblind" society and when that happens then we won't have to mitigate that fact that we don't live in a "colorblind" society today. African-Americans more so that anyone else would love to live in a colorblind societybut it doesn't exist. When it does exist then "Affirmative Action" cannot be justified and won't be necessary but until we have a "colorblind" society we need to mitigate the fact that it doesn't exist.
This is virtually identical to government welfare assistance. Want to reduce or eliminate it? Then reduce or eliminate poverty that drives the necessity for the assistance.
As a percentage of a demographic minorities are far more dependent upon welfare assistance that white people. Of course there is also a large demographic percentage of white women with children receiving welfare assistance as well which is why Republican policies and agenda on "welfare" is also seen as an attack on women. You need to address the "percentage of the demographic" and not just the raw numbers when you address who's most adversely affected by welfare assistance cuts.
In 2012 all of the Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul signed the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) "Marriage Pledge" where the preamble originally stated (at the time they signed in) that black children were better off being raised under slavery in the South. It didn't directly state that black children today would be better off being raised as slaves but it implied it. It was highly racist and NOM eventually revised the preamble to remove that statement once it was exposed.
I am sorry that you find the term, "reverse discrimination," to be so uncongenial to your tastes. But that is precisely what "affirmative action" (a euphemism, if ever there was one) amounts to, in my opinion. And I really remain quite indifferent to its exact pedigree. Those "anecdotal cases" to which you allude involve real people. And the "statistical evidence" to which you also allude as regarding the total population does nothing to vitiate the realness of these individual cases. (Whenever race or ethnicity is used as a factor--even if it is described as merely "a" factor, and not necessarily the "determining" factor--in hirings, promotions, college admissions, or anything else, that is a form of discrimination, it seems to me. Its use in the past against Jews and blacks is now widely regarded--quite correctly--as a form of discrimination. It is no less discriminatory to use it nowadays against WASPs--either with or without the Protestant part). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 19, 2014 11:33:33 GMT
I am sorry that you find the term, "reverse discrimination," to be so uncongenial to your tastes. But that is precisely what "affirmative action" (a euphemism, if ever there was one) amounts to, in my opinion. And I really remain quite indifferent to its exact pedigree. Those "anecdotal cases" to which you allude involve real people. And the "statistical evidence" to which you also allude as regarding the total population does nothing to vitiate the realness of these individual cases. (Whenever race or ethnicity is used as a factor--even if it is described as merely "a" factor, and not necessarily the "determining" factor--in hirings, promotions, college admissions, or anything else, that is a form of discrimination, it seems to me. Its use in the past against Jews and blacks is now widely regarded--quite correctly--as a form of discrimination. It is no less discriminatory to use it nowadays against WASPs--either with or without the Protestant part).
Let's look at this closely.
Federally mandated Affirmative Action for private enterprise only relates to federally contracted companies with more than 50 employees. The only requirement is that they attempt to ensure that they have policies and procedures designed to designed prevent prejudice in their hiring, wages, and advancement practices. There are no mandates involved related to hiring (e.g. quotas) and there are certainly no requirements that they EVER hire an unqualified worker.
These same guidelines exist for government jobs as well. No mandates (quotas) and only policies and procedures that attempt to ensure that that prejudice does not exist.
States also have their own "Affirmative Action" programs often related to higher education. They impose different criteria but once again no one that isn't "qualified" can benefit from the practices. For example if a state university chooses to enroll more minority students the first criteria that must be met is that the applicant is qualified. Many "racists" like to point to college admission test stating that a "more qualified" white person was denied admission but they fail to understand that these admission tests only do two things. They typically have a "score" level above which the person will always be admitted (e.g. the top 10%) and then a minimum score level for admission. In between the "minimum" level and the "mandatory admission" level the scores don't mean anything.
For example if the test is scored from 1-100 and the top 10% (i.e. scores above 90) are automatically admitted and a person must score at least 70 for admission it doesn't matter if a person scores 71 or 89 on the test. The score doesn't have any meaning because the person is not going to be automatically admitted but they still qualify for admission. There can be other factors considered such as a recommendation from their high school principle or the demographic background of the student body.
I read a case of "med-school" admissions where the "racists" claimed that blacks "took seats" from white based upon their admission test scores. The problem was that a person require a BS degree for entry into med-school and the college pre-admission tests take four years or more before have zero meaning by the time the student has their BS. In the anecdotal example one college was addressed where the entire "black" enrollment for med school was only 12 students out of about 200 med school students. With only 12 black students out of 200 they weren't taking anyone's "seat" in the med school.
With all of this said there is one fact that is missed by those claiming "reverse discrimination" (i.e. discrimination against whites) under Affirmative Action. It is against the law to discriminate even under Affirmative Action and if discrimination occurs then the person can file a lawsuit against the enterprise.
There have been very few cases where discrimination against whites has occurred based upon a misapplication of Affirmative Action guidelines in the United States. I know I haven't read of all the cases where it's been established but I know that I haven't read of more than about one case per year over the last 10 years. The last cases I remember was a case of black firefighters being promoted over white firefighters (I believe the white firefighters won) and a case of a white female student in Texas claiming racial discrimination (and she lost as I recall) but these were both a few years ago.
So here's a challenge for you. Do the research and find cases where a discrimination lawsuit by a white person was filed and the plaintiff (i.e. the white person) won the case. Discrimination against a person based upon race is AGAINST THE LAW and it doesn't matter if the person is white, black, or purple. If you want to claim "reverse discrimination" then prove it by citing court cases where it was established it actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 19, 2014 18:08:35 GMT
I am sorry that you find the term, "reverse discrimination," to be so uncongenial to your tastes. But that is precisely what "affirmative action" (a euphemism, if ever there was one) amounts to, in my opinion. And I really remain quite indifferent to its exact pedigree. Those "anecdotal cases" to which you allude involve real people. And the "statistical evidence" to which you also allude as regarding the total population does nothing to vitiate the realness of these individual cases. (Whenever race or ethnicity is used as a factor--even if it is described as merely "a" factor, and not necessarily the "determining" factor--in hirings, promotions, college admissions, or anything else, that is a form of discrimination, it seems to me. Its use in the past against Jews and blacks is now widely regarded--quite correctly--as a form of discrimination. It is no less discriminatory to use it nowadays against WASPs--either with or without the Protestant part).
Let's look at this closely.
Federally mandated Affirmative Action for private enterprise only relates to federally contracted companies with more than 50 employees. The only requirement is that they attempt to ensure that they have policies and procedures designed to designed prevent prejudice in their hiring, wages, and advancement practices. There are no mandates involved related to hiring (e.g. quotas) and there are certainly no requirements that they EVER hire an unqualified worker.
These same guidelines exist for government jobs as well. No mandates (quotas) and only policies and procedures that attempt to ensure that that prejudice does not exist.
States also have their own "Affirmative Action" programs often related to higher education. They impose different criteria but once again no one that isn't "qualified" can benefit from the practices. For example if a state university chooses to enroll more minority students the first criteria that must be met is that the applicant is qualified. Many "racists" like to point to college admission test stating that a "more qualified" white person was denied admission but they fail to understand that these admission tests only do two things. They typically have a "score" level above which the person will always be admitted (e.g. the top 10%) and then a minimum score level for admission. In between the "minimum" level and the "mandatory admission" level the scores don't mean anything.
For example if the test is scored from 1-100 and the top 10% (i.e. scores above 90) are automatically admitted and a person must score at least 70 for admission it doesn't matter if a person scores 71 or 89 on the test. The score doesn't have any meaning because the person is not going to be automatically admitted but they still qualify for admission. There can be other factors considered such as a recommendation from their high school principle or the demographic background of the student body.
I read a case of "med-school" admissions where the "racists" claimed that blacks "took seats" from white based upon their admission test scores. The problem was that a person require a BS degree for entry into med-school and the college pre-admission tests take four years or more before have zero meaning by the time the student has their BS. In the anecdotal example one college was addressed where the entire "black" enrollment for med school was only 12 students out of about 200 med school students. With only 12 black students out of 200 they weren't taking anyone's "seat" in the med school.
With all of this said there is one fact that is missed by those claiming "reverse discrimination" (i.e. discrimination against whites) under Affirmative Action. It is against the law to discriminate even under Affirmative Action and if discrimination occurs then the person can file a lawsuit against the enterprise.
There have been very few cases where discrimination against whites has occurred based upon a misapplication of Affirmative Action guidelines in the United States. I know I haven't read of all the cases where it's been established but I know that I haven't read of more than about one case per year over the last 10 years. The last cases I remember was a case of black firefighters being promoted over white firefighters (I believe the white firefighters won) and a case of a white female student in Texas claiming racial discrimination (and she lost as I recall) but these were both a few years ago.
So here's a challenge for you. Do the research and find cases where a discrimination lawsuit by a white person was filed and the plaintiff (i.e. the white person) won the case. Discrimination against a person based upon race is AGAINST THE LAW and it doesn't matter if the person is white, black, or purple. If you want to claim "reverse discrimination" then prove it by citing court cases where it was established it actually happened.
What is far more important, I believe, is this: Race should not be considered a factor--to any extent--in either the hiring, promotion, or college-admissions process. No exceptions.
And in a true meritocracy--which I strongly believe in--it should matter very much whether one scores a "71 or 89" on a test in which 100 is a perfect score. By the way, as concerning your question: The SCOTUS narrowly upheld the University of Michigan's "affirmative action" policies in June of 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger--some five-and-a-half years after the case went to court--with four justices dissenting. (Given your preference for unanimity in Supreme Court cases, this should probably be rather troubling to you.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 20, 2014 11:16:00 GMT
What is far more important, I believe, is this: Race should not be considered a factor--to any extent--in either the hiring, promotion, or college-admissions process. No exceptions.
And in a true meritocracy--which I strongly believe in--it should matter very much whether one scores a "71 or 89" on a test in which 100 is a perfect score. By the way, as concerning your question: The SCOTUS narrowly upheld the University of Michigan's "affirmative action" policies in June of 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger--some five-and-a-half years after the case went to court--with four justices dissenting. (Given your preference for unanimity in Supreme Court cases, this should probably be rather troubling to you.)
It would be nice to live in Utopia where "race doesn't matter" but unfortunately we don't. We live in the United States where racial prejudice and discrimination are widespread negatively affecting people on a daily basis. African-Americans, HIspanics, and women are discriminated against daily so what do we do about "Reality" where prejudice is more often the determining factor than not? We love to stand by our ideologies but the fact is that they are often an expression of a utopian dream and fail to address reality at all. Our ideologies must be more than empty statements and platitudes that don't address reality.
You place a lot of faith in "tests" but they are an extremely poor measurement of people in any context. The APA has often warned about the fact that test scores are often not indicative of the person's knowledge or abilities because of numerous psychological factors. So when we look at a test score we can't say that it "measured the ability or knowledge of the person" because we know that it didn't. If the test was perfect and if we lived in a perfect world it would perhaps but neither of those are true.
The case of Grutter v. Bollinger is interesting if we read the Rehnquist dissenting opinion.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZD.html
In short the dissent was based upon the fact that the four dissenting Justices believed, based upon arguments presented, that Michigan was imposing a quota system based upon "critical mass" under it's Affirmative Action policies and quotas are prohibited. Dissent did not disagree with the additional criteria being used other than test scores in determinations for admissions but did object to the fact that they were being used as a means for achieving a quota in admissions. In short the dissenting justices did not disagree with any part of the following admissions policy except the last sentence.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html
The dissenting Justices were fundamentally stating that the criteria contained in the last sentence establishing a "critical mass" (quota) was unconstitutional but not the rest of the Michigan Law School's Affirmative Action guidelines (so long at they are not used to provide a rationalization for admissions to fulfill a "quota")
I would agree that "quotas" are unconstitutional and criteria should not be used to mask a quota system.
What is important to note is that the University of Michigan Law School understands that the "academic ability" which would be reflected by the student's GPA and test scores are only limited factors in the evaluation of the student for admission and the dissenting Justices did not disagree with this.
|
|
