No more AA at Michigan Law?

[t...]

I've already proposed a better solution -- one that only benefits people who are actually disadvantaged by discrimination.

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

I do acknowledge the difference between privileged and underprivileged minorities, and the difference between privileged and underprivileged whites.

You, however, overstate the frequency and impact of the former, especially in relation to the latter.

In light of that fact, treating everyone who has the same skin color identically, and treating different ethnicities differently simply because they're different ethnicities, simply makes no sense and cannot be justified -- no matter how much racism and discrimiation exists or existed in society.  Especially since such inequitable treatment only increases said racism.

Right. So minorities weren't already systematically discriminated against precisely and wholly because of their skin color? And gender? And ethnicity? And anything "other" than the white religious norm?

[Lindbergh]

Or they like to divert your attention by calling you a racist.  These people aren't worth your time or effort. 

It's not my fault that your (and Lindbergh's) position is the one also occupied by racists.  It's also not my fault that it's very difficult to tell the difference between what you say and what a racist would say. 

Okay, so when I note that I'm a URM that theoretically benefits from AA, but oppose it becuase 1) it's unfair, 2) it's immoral, 3) it's ineffective, and 4) it increases racism and stigmatizes minorties, you can't tell the difference between that and what a racist would say?

When I say that disadvantaged minorities (and whites) should be analyzed differently from privileged minorities (and whites), that's what a racist would say?

When I say people should not be judged solely by the color of their skin, that's what a racist would say?  

Isn't the truth that you have such a knee-jerk, closeminded view of this issue that you automatically tune out any arguments againt it, and simply assume the posters are racist?  I mean, clearly, if they don't agree with the Left's prescription for social harmony and equality, they must have an evil animus.  It couldn't be that they simply see serious flaws in the approach, and recognize a reformed approach would be better.

AA will be tested and struck soon enough - it is unconstitutional after all.

No, it is constitutional (for now).  But yes, given the present court, I don't expect that to last.

It is in fact currently constitutional, in the samy was that Plessy and Dred Scott were "constitutional" for many years.  That said, I think it's clear that even if a compelling interest is implicated here, more narrowly tailored alternatives to the current approach exist that would be comparably effective with less discrimiation and negative effects.  It's therefore difficult to conclude that it doesn't in reality violate equal protection.  In other words, future generations will recognize that current interpretations are in error, just as with the other cases.  

[Lindbergh]

"Privileged minorities." 

I wonder how privileged "privileged" minorities feel. 

But I couldn't say without speculating.  Oh well. 

I honestly don't care how they "feel" (given that I was an underprivileged minority), and I don't understand why you feel the need to put quotes around the word.  (I don't much care how privileged whites feel either.)  Do you really not feel Colin Powell's kid is privileged?  Do you really feel he deserves boosts when he applies to schools?  How about Alberto Gonzales' kids?  Oprah's?  Even when they have all the advantages possible?

Well, the AA supporters are clearly far more angry on this issue, presumably becuase they're trying to defend a morally indefensible position.  I guess that's why their opinions aren't highly regarded. 

Angry is bad in general.  Leads to heart disease. 

I agree, but maybe we should at least be a little annoyed by injustice, and therefore seek to rectify it.  

[t...]

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

Aren't you refusing to acknowledge that there's a difference between "privileged" whites and "privileged" minorities? 

You're right - there certainly is.

[blondngreen]

How privileged do privileged minorities feel?  I guess not privileged enough.   

[t...]

I honestly don't care how they "feel" (given that I was an underprivileged minority), and I don't understand why you feel the need to put quotes around the word.  (I don't much care how privileged whites feel either.)  Do you really not feel Colin Powell's kid is privileged?  Do you really feel he deserves boosts when he applies to schools?  How about Alberto Gonzales' kids?  Oprah's?  Even when they have all the advantages possible?

When they're not looked at by society as 1) inferior, 2) criminals, 3) illegal immigrants, 4) dangerous, 5) whatever other ridiculous sentiment they suffer, maybe I'll start to take you seriously.

[blondngreen]

How privileged do privileged minorities feel?  I guess not privileged enough.   

I suppose you adopt the money view toward privilege as well? 

And you still sound angry. 

Money generally equals a decent education.

[Lindbergh]

there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

link?

If you really don't think there's a difference between privileged and underprivileged people when it comes to admissions, the entire rationale for AA collapses.
The fact you apparently can't see that difference highlights how blind and closed-minded your thinking is.  

  In light of that fact, treating everyone who has the same skin color identically, and treating different ethnicities differently simply because they're different ethnicities, simply makes no sense and cannot be justified -- no matter how much racism and discrimiation exists or existed in society.  Especially since such inequitable treatment only increases said racism. 

It can.  Narrowly tailored, etc.  Check it out.

(hypo:  Would differential treatment be "justified" if there was a law requiring employers to give women and only women one week paid time off for the act of childbirth?  Or a law requiring employers to give men and only men one day paid time off to get their prostates checked?)

It can be certainly be rationalized, especially among those who refuse to question it at all. However, that's not the same as an actual justification.

Differential treatment can arguably be justified when there are inherent differences between people, like prostates, pregnancies, etc.  The only way to apply this to ethnicity is if you make the assumption that minorities are inherently intellectually inferior.  If you really believe that, then say so -- at least then your position will be consistent.  However, I personally disagree, and I find such racist assumptions not only incredibly insulting, but terrible grounds for public policy.  

When exactly did liberals become more close-minded than conservatives anyway?  1978?

Disagreement with you == closed minded?

Nope -- unwillingness to examine the issue honestly and in an open-minded manner = close minded.  

[Lindbergh]

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

Aren't you refusing to acknowledge that there's a difference between "privileged" whites and "privileged" minorities? 

Of course there's a difference.  Privileged minorities, while possessing the same educational and economic advantages, often have a different skin tone.

However, the idea that skin tone, standing alone, should be a basis for public policy is inherently racist and ridiculous.

[blondngreen]

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites.

Aren't you refusing to acknowledge that there's a difference between "privileged" whites and "privileged" minorities? 

I agree.


Of course there's a difference.  Privileged minorities, while possessing the same educational and economic advantages, often have a different skin tone.

However, the idea that skin tone, standing alone, should be a basis for public policy is inherently racist and ridiculous.