Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: Ilovecheese on March 28, 2006, 07:26:19 PM

Title: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 28, 2006, 07:26:19 PM
Some suggest AA to be implemented in South Africa, a country where the majority is black, but whites are the ruling class.
Discuss.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=594&art_id=vn20060328041237689C842917
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: coquita on March 28, 2006, 08:08:34 PM
hmm..you're back. wondered how long it would take.

i don't have a stance on this issue since i'm not African and don't know the whole situation outside of the one sided article you provided. but i'm sure you'll make baseless assertions about it nonetheless.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: coquita on March 28, 2006, 08:13:08 PM
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9810/08/safrica.affirmative.action/ (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9810/08/safrica.affirmative.action/)
here's a more balanced article.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 29, 2006, 06:47:53 AM
Haha, yeah I'm back. I wanted to discuss this issue comparing it to the US since a point was raised in one of the posts that AA would be rid off in 25 years or so.
However, since AA is used as a mistreatment balancer and since in Africa the ones who were the cause of mistreatment are in power AA was presented for discussion.
So my question is, in several decades minority populations will probably make up a big chunk of American population, since through today's statistics whites are increasing their population slower than other groups do. But what if governmental and judicial powers will still be in the hands of whites? Will that mean that AA will still exist since whites are the cause of mistreatment?
I understand that it is hard to make such a comparison since it is impossible to predict the future, but  the hypothetical case presented being true, what are your thoughts?
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: redemption on March 29, 2006, 07:23:30 AM
Haha, yeah I'm back. I wanted to discuss this issue comparing it to the US since a point was raised in one of the posts that AA would be rid off in 25 years or so.
However, since AA is used as a mistreatment balancer and since in Africa the ones who were the cause of mistreatment are in power AA was presented for discussion.
So my question is, in several decades minority populations will probably make up a big chunk of American population, since through today's statistics whites are increasing their population slower than other groups do. But what if governmental and judicial powers will still be in the hands of whites? Will that mean that AA will still exist since whites are the cause of mistreatment?
I understand that it is hard to make such a comparison since it impossible to predict the future, but  the hypothetical case presented being true, what are your thoughts?

Systematic power imbalance is evidence of bias
Existence of bias is the justificatory basis of corrective action
Affirmative action is a form of corrective action

Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 29, 2006, 01:18:24 PM
I agree on all points with you red.
Now let'c consider the following:
Power is in the hands of those who posess money.
Money is acquired through educating oneself.
Most  blacks were not able to educate themselves because of racist policies and lack of money.
A creation of the circle of poverty was followed.
AA broke the circle and allowed some blacks to receive education allowing them to earn enough to support education of their children. This brought blacks into positions of power.
Now, will their be a need for AA when URM's will live equally to whites? This question might be stupid to some, but successful URM's still use their ethnic status  to get into top schools if they are at a numerical disadvantage compared to whites.

So when will AA be rid off?
When racism and prejudice that cause mistreatment will not exist? I find that impossible.
Or when URM's will be qual to whites in terms of power distribution and income?
Or is it a combination of both?
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: redemption on March 29, 2006, 01:29:02 PM
I agree on all points with you red.
Now let'c consider the following:
Power is in the hands of those who posess money.
Money is acquired through educating oneself.
Most  blacks were not able to educate themselves because of racist policies and lack of money.
A creation of the circle of poverty was followed.
AA broke the circle and allowed some blacks to receive education allowing them to earn enough to support education of their children. This brought blacks into positions of power.
Now, will their be a need for AA when URM's will live equally to whites? This question might be stupid to some, but successful URM's still use their ethnic status  to get into top schools if they are at a numerical disadvantage compared to whites.

So when will AA be rid off?
When racism and prejudice that cause mistreatment will not exist? I find that impossible.
Or when URM's will be qual to whites in terms of power distribution and income?
Or is it a combination of both?

The day that blacks and whites are of equal power and status in this or any other country is the day that we should dismantle AA.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: philibusters on March 29, 2006, 05:26:15 PM
The 25 years thing was from 2003 dissenting opinion of Clarence Thomas (he said 300 months for some reason instead of 25 years go figure.

Immigration to South Africa is very high from neighboring countries liek Zimbabwe and Zambia, et cetera, (not to say the SA gov't isn't trying to stop them, they are), most of the immigrants are black, should the AA extend to them, or is it more of a restitution type thing?  I ask that from a philosphical position (is it morally jsutified), not a policy position (if they are trying to stop immigrants why give them AA?)
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 29, 2006, 06:57:09 PM

Immigration to South Africa is very high from neighboring countries liek Zimbabwe and Zambia, et cetera, (not to say the SA gov't isn't trying to stop them, they are), most of the immigrants are black, should the AA extend to them, or is it more of a restitution type thing?  I ask that from a philosphical position (is it morally jsutified), not a policy position (if they are trying to stop immigrants why give them AA?)

South African AA is a tad different, it applies on work placement. From a philosophical position it should be extended to immigrants since they are African and might have suffered the same injustices which Soouth Africans suffered and still suffer.

While reading upon this subject I became to wonder if AA should be selective?
What I mean is that only people, not just URM's who prove that they were put in an unfavorable position which was the cause of their grades and LSAT being lower.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: coquita on March 29, 2006, 08:36:08 PM
The problem i have w/ the AA they are instituting in South Africa is that they are actually firing white executives to replace them with blacks. i don't see how it is justifiable to terminate someone solely on race. With AA in the US race is not the sole factor for hiring, but it gives a boost to the candidate depending on ethnicity. So therefore a white who is 10x more qualified than the URM will probably get hired over the URM because race can't make up for the extreme difference in qualifications. However it seems that in South Africa race is almost the sole factor in hiring in some industries. And that just doesn't make sense to me.

Other than that I think what Red said is completely accurate. When systemic racism is eliminated, thats when we should stop using AA.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 29, 2006, 09:08:36 PM
Firing white employees and replacing them with blacks is what South Africans see as fair. And such act is not much different from a URm getting admitted into a school over a higher qualifying white person to fill a quota.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: coquita on March 29, 2006, 09:47:46 PM
Quotas are no longer allowed under the ruling of Adarand Constructers Inc. v Pena. It was applied to schools in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

once again know your facts. ;)

Also I thought we were talking about AA in South Africa. But it seems you started the thread to trash AA in  law school admissions... again.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 30, 2006, 06:07:36 AM
I know that quotas are not allowed. I also know that they do exist. My relative is a dean of admissions at a top LS and he told me that they use them.

Oh, I'm not trashing AA. I think we need it, but I do not think it should be a more selective process in deciding who deserves it.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: mivida2k on March 30, 2006, 07:57:22 AM
I know that quotas are not allowed. I also know that they do exist. My relative is a dean of admissions at a top LS and he told me that they use them.

Oh, I'm not trashing AA. I think we need it, but I do not think it should be a more selective process in deciding who deserves it.


I am sure that you are going to report him to the DOJ.   ::)
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: coquita on March 30, 2006, 10:49:43 AM
I know that quotas are not allowed. I also know that they do exist. My relative is a dean of admissions at a top LS and he told me that they use them.

Oh, I'm not trashing AA. I think we need it, but I do not think it should be a more selective process in deciding who deserves it.

well then your dean relative is doing something unconstitutional. I doubt they use quotas (accepting a set amount of minorities), they use preference points, which are legal. If you have such a problem with quotas, report that law school to the DOJ instead of bitching about it on LSD.

also you disagreed with AA in another post saying that URMs get alot if not more resources than whites. so are you changing your stance now? look at your quote below

Quote
Also, Coquita, yes whites held blacks in slavery for a long time, but that is not a reason for blacks, not all, but many, being tokes of top univesities. You still do not understand that I'm not trying to argue that blacks or any other URM is inferior in some matter to a white man. What I'm saying is that a person MUST prove his/her worth and being part of a program that undermines intelligence ( that's what AA does in my opinion) of some races is just ridiculous.

how can you agree w/ it if you think it undermines intelligence?

Quote
Lastly, I think that Horsley is right when he says that URM's enjoy as many if  not more benefits of the American society. URM neighbourhoods get so much help, but most of that help is wasted, because many URM's especially blacks think that the world owes them something.


also how can you agree w/ AA when you said blacks get equal if not more benefits in America?

know what you stance is, know your facts, and then you maybe we can hope to have an intelligent dicussion w/ you here.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: redemption on March 30, 2006, 12:42:37 PM
Ilovecheese: To start a topic on one topic in order to draw people into a discussion about something else entirely is rude and diminishes your credibility as a poster on this board. Don't be tempted to do it.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: philibusters on March 30, 2006, 01:07:28 PM
No quotas in teh law in this country, but they difinitely exist in reality, I think the whole "critical mass" is quotas in disguise as Rehnquist pointed out in his dissent. However, quotas oerate different in a country where quota for african americans is 8% of total maybe 5% for hispanics, that means 87% can still be white, so quotas only affect the marginally qualfied.  In SA if they used quotas of say 85% (totally made up that number), that would affect all but the most qualfied white job seekers.  That said I exagerated that number horrible to make a pt., quotas work better where you are dealing with a minority, than a majority.

We don't let people get fired to hire people-or do we?  Actually the law is unsettled-the caselaw seems to indicate no, but teacher's union and other unions that use seniority systems present special problems.  If the normal system is based on seniority, then whee there has to be a downsizing, should minorities be exempt from the seniority system?  Wygant for example said no, but O'Conner was the swing vote in a 5-4 decision in that case .  With Roberts and Alito that decision is probably solid, but replacing renhiquist and o'conner with roberts and alito just keeps the vote at 5-4, so the next change in court could upset that.
Title: Re: AA in South Africa.
Post by: Ilovecheese on March 30, 2006, 07:14:18 PM
Ilovecheese: To start a topic on one topic in order to draw people into a discussion about something else entirely is rude and diminishes your credibility as a poster on this board. Don't be tempted to do it.

My topic was a discussion of AA in SA. Discussion also means comparisons and that is what I'm doing by talking about AA in America.

Coquitta, I'm not trying to bash AA in this post.
My last comment posed a question of whether it is fair to give seats in LS to lower qualified students based on race when it is clearly unfair to take someone elses job and replace that person with another because of race.