ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world

[Lindbergh]

Look outside "this context", though. If you're talking "general equality of opportunity," you're talking life in general (and you've discussed that selectively already, anyway).

So, again, what does "general equality of opportunity" mean?

No, actually, I was saying that my proposal would create a "general equality of opportunity" in the context of LS admissions.  I've already explained what that means in that context.

If you don't know what the general idea of "equality of opportunity" means, it basically means that people have the same chance to compete for various school slots, jobs, etc., with the understanding that some inequality of results is largely inevitable.

[7S]

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

[Lindbergh]

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage down the road?

[Lindbergh]

Then there are times in my life when I concede that SOMETHING must be done and we haven't worked out anything BETTER yet.

How about simply taking into educational opportunities into account, and giving URM's the tiebreaker for diversity purposes?  (Combined with strong enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.)

Then there are times in my life when I actually support kicking whitey out on his ass and installing militant radical politically correct types everywhere we can find an opening just out of spite as anything else. The Bush cabinet being a prime example of the latter ...

The Bush cabinet is the most racially diverse in history (especially in more powerful positions), so this would be a horrible example.

I also smoke a pipe and support anti-smoking campaigns. Your thoughts?

Sounds like you don't necessarily think through your views very thorougly.   

[7S]

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

[Keanu]

::plays with ball of yarn::

[Lindbergh]

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

[Lindbergh]

Yeah, I do think my ideas through quite thoroughly.

Your post indicates otherwise, but maybe you were joking.

Q:  By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process?  Because that's the only way that would happen.

I just balance them between poles which most people don't usually assume are the operative ones.

What poles are those?  Curious.

And the Bush cabinet does fit my concerns -- kicking whitey out, would be kicking GEORGE W. BUSH out because he's one of the few token whiteys. Get it? (Heh ...) 

Hint: Bush isn't a member of his cabinet.

He was also elected, not appointed -- your thinking shows disturbingly anti-democratic tendencies!   

[7S]

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

No, it's my way saying that you're trying to twist my statement to fit your sheepish conservative goals.

[7S]

By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process?  Because that's the only way that would happen.

"Kicking out and installing" could simply mean impeaching and confirming a new leader.