Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Apr '14 01:22
    It has always befuddled me how discrimination can ever be ended by changing those discriminated against.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/
  2. 23 Apr '14 01:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It has always befuddled me how discrimination can ever be ended by changing those discriminated against.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/
    Not quite right. Actually if the voters of a state voted for AA, to be consistent, SCOTUS would say it's not the business of the federal government to overturn. AA is not shot down by this decision.

    "But three justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. concluded that the lower court did not have the authority to set aside the law.
    This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy wrote.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    The ramifications are significant, but not as a decision against AA. For example, my state, California, where Proposition 209 since 1996 has forbidden consideration of race and gender in university admissions, contracting and other public programs throughout the state.

    Without any successful challenge.
  3. 23 Apr '14 01:44
    Originally posted by JS357
    Not quite right. Actually if the voters of a state voted for AA, to be consistent, SCOTUS would say it's not the business of the federal government to overturn. AA is not shot down by this decision.

    "But three justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. concluded that the lower court did not have the authority to ...[text shortened]... ion/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    The ramifications are significant, but not as a decision against AA.
    The argument in Michigan about admission standards at U of M has been ongoing for 3 or 4 decades, and this in Michigan puts the issue to rest. I would suspect it ought to have an affect on cases in district and appeals courts downstream. At least we can hope. It is time to stop race bating in America.
  4. 23 Apr '14 01:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The argument in Michigan about admission standards at U of M has been ongoing for 3 or 4 decades, and this in Michigan puts the issue to rest. I would suspect it ought to have an affect on cases in district and appeals courts downstream. At least we can hope. It is time to stop race bating in America.
    Please see my edit and I apologize for not finishing my post before hitting post. This may fend off further challenges to AA, but what I think is important is that it does leave it and perhaps other things to the states.

    But it's your OP, you've made your point.
  5. 23 Apr '14 15:39
    Interesting Scalia quote:

    Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?

    I humbly await the ridicule from the left to be directed at Scalia for being such a cretin and me for not seeing what a cretin he is.
  6. 23 Apr '14 15:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Interesting Scalia quote:

    [b]Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?


    I humbly await the ridicule from the left to be directed at Scalia for being such a cretin and me for not seeing what a cretin he is.[/b]
    The problem comes when people try to use the Constitution as a tool against citizens when it is meant to be a tool against the government.
  7. 23 Apr '14 15:58
    Good decision. Now they just need to extend it to a ban on accepting students based on non-acedemic criteria in general (for public institutions).
  8. 23 Apr '14 17:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Good decision. Now they just need to extend it to a ban on accepting students based on non-acedemic criteria in general (for public institutions).
    I would not be against that goal but I do not think, in the United States at least, we are moving toward that goal.
  9. 23 Apr '14 17:40
    It's always been ridiculous that liberals demand that some people be admitted to colleges that they have no business going to just to meet a quota and to show that they "care"
  10. 23 Apr '14 17:43
    Originally posted by TheBloop
    It's always been ridiculous that liberals demand that some people be admitted to colleges that they have no business going to just to meet a quota and to show that they "care"
    It is worse than ridiculous. It is actually explicit racial discrimination.
  11. 23 Apr '14 19:06
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I would not be against that goal but I do not think, in the United States at least, we are moving toward that goal.
    It does not appear so. Some universities in the Netherlands are even moving towards an American-style admission system, with application letters, interviews, etc. A worrying trend. They should just take the students with the best grades.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    23 Apr '14 19:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It does not appear so. Some universities in the Netherlands are even moving towards an American-style admission system, with application letters, interviews, etc. A worrying trend. They should just take the students with the best grades.
    Yes all this inbuilt, structural disadvantage is just a fact of life and we must do nothing active about it, knowing that in that case it will persist indefinitely.
  13. 23 Apr '14 19:41
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Yes all this inbuilt, structural disadvantage is just a fact of life and we must do nothing active about it, knowing that in that case it will persist indefinitely.
    If there is an inbuilt, structural disadvantage to certain groups (and there is), then the appropriate course of action is to remove that disadvantage, not to create new disadvantages and injustices. In this case, it implies providing adequate and affordable education to all.
  14. 23 Apr '14 20:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If there is an inbuilt, structural disadvantage to certain groups (and there is), then the appropriate course of action is to remove that disadvantage, not to create new disadvantages and injustices. In this case, it implies providing adequate and affordable education to all.
    One of the most odious discriminations is the favoritism to alumni children, so called legacy admissions. Of course this could be children of any race or gender.

    The problem with the last suggestion is that not all children want or are qualified for the same, "best" education. Of course this is also the source of the problems at U of M. It is the target of most college bound Michigan students, even though some desiring entry might be better served by a nearby community college or trade school.

    As it stands, equally qualified students can be admitted if they can afford to attend. Of course that can eliminate otherwise qualified students. Grades and admissions tests both have shortcomings in measuring student ability, but it appears they are the best we've got to measure ability objectively. Perhaps a composite of both might tell better than either, and both could be improved for objectivity.
  15. 23 Apr '14 20:27
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Interesting Scalia quote:

    [b]Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?


    I humbly await the ridicule from the left to be directed at Scalia for being such a cretin and me for not seeing what a cretin he is.[/b]
    I must join the cretins as I don't see anything wrong with Scalia's comment.

    "Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?[/b]"

    I love it when someone has the brass ones to ask if the Constitution really means what it says.