Although I am no proponent of AA, I do have to chime in here. A lot of people argue that the main idea behind AA is to benefit those with lack of accessibility to a quality education earlier in life. These struggling educational surroundings are usually attributed to the economic lower classes. I feel that although many URM's fill up this demographic, that if any preferential treatment should be given at all, especially in respect to poor early education, it should be given on a economic class basis alone, not upon race. It seems to me that the argument that any URM deserves to be beneficiaries of AA simply because a significant percentage of lower class people are URM's is an error in logic. It is unfair if someone of equal means, scores, and quality to be admitted over another candidate when the deciding factor is skin color.Basically, my argument is that AA in practice is flawed. The idea is there, but the implementation needs work. It's hard to grow up being taught not to look at skin color, to assume all people are equal, and to then be subject to the subtle racism that is AA. I agree there should be programs to help those with weaker educational backgrounds that were beyond their control, but to assume that all URM's that apply to a given school/job had this educational deficit is just plain stereotyping.
doesn't the 14th Amendment technically only apply to States and State laws? Considering that the case before the Court was about a state university, you could argue that the 14th Amendment applies, but UofM's policies aren't state law or state enforced, and also, the "abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities" clause in the 14th Amendment is pretty nebulous... I think the Court was well within its jurisdiction given that their job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution...
as for AA being directed to fixing the problem of underrepresentation... have you considered that maybe the end doesn't entirely justify the means? although AA in practice gives an immediate boost to minority representation at law schools, in the long run it should be abolished for a more proactive approach (i.e., promoting access to education and resources at a k-12 stage, rather than at a collegiate or professional school stage)
Page created in 0.453 seconds with 18 queries.