Just really frustrated about the lack of unrepresented minority at law schools..

[Miss P]

I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities.  

hey your opinion: bakke right or wrong?

Whoops, sorry, didn't see this.  Briefly: right insofar as it allowed race to be a consideration in admissions, wrong insofar as it prohibited Davis' creative admissions scheme.  The anti-affirmative action brigade gets so much mileage out of stomping around complaining about quotas.  Personally, I don't see the problem with them as long as they're flexible and set at reasonable levels.  I really challenge someone to come up with a principled opposition to quota systems that is not merely an opposition to consideration of race in general.

[Ender Wiggin]

I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

i still don't understand why you insist on addressing people whom you should be ignoring.

Why should I be ignored?  For not being as smart or as good at making points as you?  Maybe I grew up in an environment where those skills were not fostered.  In the spirit of consistency, shouldn't you make an effort to level the playing field for me?  (I am not trying to be an idiot with this comment--I think it is a valid point, especially in a discussion about this topic.)  

[Astro]

I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities. 

hey your opinion: bakke right or wrong?

Whoops, sorry, didn't see this.  Briefly: right insofar as it allowed race to be a consideration in admissions, wrong insofar as it prohibited Davis' creative admissions scheme.  The anti-affirmative action brigade gets so much mileage out of stomping around complaining about quotas.  Personally, I don't see the problem with them as long as they're flexible and set at reasonable levels.  I really challenge someone to come up with a principled opposition to quota systems that is not merely an opposition to consideration of race in general.

Bingo.

[Qui Ju]

I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities.  

hey your opinion: bakke right or wrong?

Whoops, sorry, didn't see this.  Briefly: right insofar as it allowed race to be a consideration in admissions, wrong insofar as it prohibited Davis' creative admissions scheme.  The anti-affirmative action brigade gets so much mileage out of stomping around complaining about quotas.  Personally, I don't see the problem with them as long as they're flexible and set at reasonable levels.  I really challenge someone to come up with a principled opposition to quota systems that is not merely an opposition to consideration of race in general.

that's what i figured.  what would you prefer though: individual review or quota?

[Miss P]

Again, I agree with dissents in the case more than than the majority opinion.  The fact that 5 out of 9 agreed with a different interpretation in Grutter doesn't necessarily mean that one side is right or wrong.  Also, I'm not sure why you say "esteemed" - I think my tone has been appreciative of you and others who are discussing this, and I haven't acted as if my opinion is the only valid one, and that you who disagree are stupid.  On the contrary, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and help clarify the issue for me.  

And I don't think I'm "obviously missing" anything about the origins of the 14th, race relations, etc - 4 Supreme Court justices, who are much smarter than me, and probably have greater understanding of those issues than you, still thought that the Michigan Law admissions policy was unconstitutional - that leads me to believe that there is at least room for reasonable arguments on either side.  I don't think anyone who takes the side of the dissenters is necessarily ignorant about all the things you said, they might just have a different opinion on it.

I don't think the mere fact of your agreement with Scalia, et al., means you're uninformed.  I am referring to your discussion earlier in the thread of the lack of need for affirmative action programs.  

[Astro]

I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

i still don't understand why you insist on addressing people whom you should be ignoring.

Why should I be ignored?  For not being as smart or as good at making points as you?  Maybe I grew up in an environment where those skills were not fostered.  In the spirit of consistency, shouldn't you make an effort to level the playing field for me?  (I am not trying to be an idiot with this comment--I think it is a valid point, especially in a discussion about this topic.) 

Ignore those two.  They're flirting.

As for struggles, you owe her an apology for making an insincere yet derogatory argument that clearly conflated race, intelligence and work ethic, even if you were doing so tongue-in-cheek.  It didn't come across as (you're saying) you meant it to -- it really does look like poor spelling = lower intelligence/work ethic = minorities, whether you make the "just devil's advocating" disclaimer or not.  And she clearly took offense to it.

[Qui Ju]

I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

i still don't understand why you insist on addressing people whom you should be ignoring.

Why should I be ignored?  For not being as smart or as good at making points as you?  Maybe I grew up in an environment where those skills were not fostered.  In the spirit of consistency, shouldn't you make an effort to level the playing field for me?  (I am not trying to be an idiot with this comment--I think it is a valid point, especially in a discussion about this topic.) 

Ignore those two.  They're flirting.

As for struggles, you owe her an apology for making an insincere yet derogatory argument that clearly conflated race, intelligence and work ethic, even if you were doing so tongue-in-cheek.  It didn't come across as (you're saying) you meant it to -- it really does look like poor spelling = lower intelligence/work ethic = minorities, whether you make the "just devil's advocating" disclaimer or not.  And she clearly took offense to it.

the same criticism for you. 

honestly, i don't understand the point of fighting every single minor battle.  go for the big ones; the ones where there will be some actual benefit.

[Miss P]

I'm sure you do have a general idea of what's going on in those cases.  What you're obviously missing is an understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment, the history of race relations in our country, and the lack of access to higher education for some minority communities.  

hey your opinion: bakke right or wrong?

Whoops, sorry, didn't see this.  Briefly: right insofar as it allowed race to be a consideration in admissions, wrong insofar as it prohibited Davis' creative admissions scheme.  The anti-affirmative action brigade gets so much mileage out of stomping around complaining about quotas.  Personally, I don't see the problem with them as long as they're flexible and set at reasonable levels.  I really challenge someone to come up with a principled opposition to quota systems that is not merely an opposition to consideration of race in general.

that's what i figured.  what would you prefer though: individual review or quota?

These two policies aren't opposed.  Certainly, one can fill a quota using individual review of the candidates.  Obviously, I believe that admissions committees should endeavor to consider each application as carefully as possible; having flexible race-based quotas in no way inhibits them from doing so.  Furthermore, the "individual review" of candidates as employed at a place like Michigan probably is an ad hoc quota system (bosco is right about this); why not make the standards and thresholds public so that we can make sure they're set at the right levels?  In the alternative, a remedial program like the undergraduate admissions program in Gratz, which attempts to balance the numerical credentials of the candidates based on (a) admissions priorities of different groups of students (athletes, Michiganders, etc.) and (b) analysis of the disadvantages faced by some groups of students (poor kids, black kids, kids who went to poor schools), seems entirely fair to me.  

I forgot to mention perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bakke: the focus on diversity as the sole constitutional rationale for affirmative action programs in education.  I can imagine more significant and demonstrable government interests (remediation, etc.).

[Astro]

I don't disagree with Quibbles at all.

You owe an apology to struggles and a responsibility to yourself to become more thoughtful and informed.   I simply can't engage in a discussion where the standards for conduct are so low.  Peace.

i still don't understand why you insist on addressing people whom you should be ignoring.

Why should I be ignored?  For not being as smart or as good at making points as you?  Maybe I grew up in an environment where those skills were not fostered.  In the spirit of consistency, shouldn't you make an effort to level the playing field for me?  (I am not trying to be an idiot with this comment--I think it is a valid point, especially in a discussion about this topic.) 

Ignore those two.  They're flirting.

As for struggles, you owe her an apology for making an insincere yet derogatory argument that clearly conflated race, intelligence and work ethic, even if you were doing so tongue-in-cheek.  It didn't come across as (you're saying) you meant it to -- it really does look like poor spelling = lower intelligence/work ethic = minorities, whether you make the "just devil's advocating" disclaimer or not.  And she clearly took offense to it.

the same criticism for you. 

 


Do you mean your criticism to red., or do you mean my criticism to this guy?   




Nah, I know what you mean.  Honestly, it's worthwhile here.  I'm interested in praxis -- something might actually happen here that solves the issue, even if it's a small one, so I'm fighting the battle.

[Qui Ju]

I forgot to mention perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bakke: the focus on diversity as the sole constitutional rationale for affirmative action programs in education.  I can imagine more significant and demonstrable government interests (remediation, etc.).

right, obviously even a quota would require individual attention, but i meant to draw an either or distinction (i.e. my choices WOULD have been mutually exclusive, somewhat).  

i don't know, i like the diversity thing, if only because it's basically saying: "hey white people, this is good for YOU."

though personally i think the best way of thinking about it is in terms of adversity, etc. etc.

Do you mean your criticism to red., or do you mean my criticism to this guy?  




Nah, I know what you mean.  Honestly, it's worthwhile here.  I'm interested in praxis -- something might actually happen here that solves the issue, even if it's a small one, so I'm fighting the battle.

obviously i mean that i address MY criticism to you in the same way. 

if you think so.  myself personally, i've given up on humanity and am committed to screwing it over in every way possible.