No more AA at Michigan Law?

[Lindbergh]

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

Pot ==> Kettle

So now you're attacking me just becuase you think I'm black?  

[blondngreen]

So now you're attacking me just becuase you think I'm black?   

heh.

He thinks you're intellectually inferior because you're black.  He's a bad man.

[Lindbergh]

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

Okay, so they should clearly be treated differently.  Perhaps we agree on that.

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

How have I overstated the frequency?  I've simply noted that where it occurs, preferences are inappropriate.  If it's that rare, this shouldn't affect much at all.

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?

But again, such past (and even present) discrimination only justifies differential treatment in those cases where the individual is actually educationally disadvantaged as a result.  It doesn't justify it where the opportunities are now equal, which is clearly the case in at least some situations.  

[Lindbergh]

I thought you were an Aryan king??

1) no.
2) no.
3) link?
4) only to those who already stigmatize minorities.

htfh.

Interestingly, you don't answer the actual question.  (Is that a reference to one of Pitt's roles? If not, you shouldn't make racial assumptions based simply on viewpoints.)

However, to address the premises:  You really don't think it's unfair when a poor white/asian is passed over for, say, a wealthy latin who maybe doesn't even look dark?  You don't think some people will view a minority Harvard Law grad differently than a white/asian one?  You don't think this ever occurs?  You think only racists are capable of drawing rational conclusions, based on the current admissions structure?

Did you just compare AA to Dred Scott?

Good job.

 

Dred Scott is an example of the SCOTUS saying something was constitutional, even though we now recognize it shouldn't have been.  In that sense, the cases are comparable, though Plessy is actually a far more apt comparison.  

[Lindbergh]

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.

Only Democrats look at Alberto Gonzales as inferior, criminal, and dangerous.  And I don't see how those opinions affect his academic performance.

[t...]

But again, such past (and even present) discrimination only justifies differential treatment in those cases where the individual is actually educationally disadvantaged as a result.  It doesn't justify it where the opportunities are now equal, which is clearly the case in at least some situations. 

I think this is the meat of our disagreement. I think that the effect of AA - upsetting the status quo and balance of power/privilege in this country, over-weighs the negative affect you describe. I think once power and privilege is a bit more proportional, race perceptions should naturally ease and AA can be abandoned.

You probably disagree, and don't think the current costs/effects of AA are worth it to remedy existing conditions. I can admire that, at least.  But then, what else do you propose?

[Lindbergh]

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

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

Any good Marxist/Leftist will recognize that money is the primary element in privilege.  

[t...]

Homework for y'all:

Dig up the statistics on how many minorities attend law school. Also find out how many minorities end up in positions of power - partners, CEO's, whatever.

[Lindbergh]

So you assume that "privilege" means wealth only? 

Privilege primarily means wealth, yes.  I think pretty much every rational person recognizes this.  There's a reason O.J. got off, despite being clearly guilty.  

Of course, people can also be advantaged by virtue of things like physical strength, height, athletic ability, charm, intelligence, looks, etc.  However, you'd have to be pretty racist to claim that whites somehow have a monopoly on those factors.  

I wouldn't call Gonzales' kids privileged.  That lineage might be a liability. 

I imagine that his kids will have more educational and occupational advantages than most white/asian kids, don't you?

Everyone getting a little annoyed by what they perceive to be injustice just leads to people shooting at each other. 

Kind of like the Civil War, huh?  Was that a mistake?

[Lindbergh]

But again, such past (and even present) discrimination only justifies differential treatment in those cases where the individual is actually educationally disadvantaged as a result.  It doesn't justify it where the opportunities are now equal, which is clearly the case in at least some situations. 

I think this is the meat of our disagreement. I think that the effect of AA - upsetting the status quo and balance of power/privilege in this country, over-weighs the negative affect you describe. I think once power and privilege is a bit more proportional, race perceptions should naturally ease and AA can be abandoned.

You probably disagree, and don't think the current costs/effects of AA are worth it to remedy existing conditions. I can admire that, at least.  But then, what else do you propose?

Again, I simply propose restricting preferential admissions to minorities (and probably whites) who are in fact educationally disadvantaged.  

In other words, take it on a case-by-case basis, and stop assuming that all whites are in a position of power, and all minorities are somehow victimized, no matter how successful they are.  This would presumably maintain most of the legitimate benefits of AA, without all the counterproductive baggage that comes with it.