[Some] minorities [agree]....Class based AA.

[bluepeter]

Affirmative action isn't a program where whites are being systematically denied admission to most colleges and universities. Trust me, white folks still command a significant portion of the slots at American Law Schools. Affirmative Action is simply a measure that limits the amount of the pie you can have. And no, you can't have it all. That's selfish.

There are plenty of ways to justify the burden affirmative action places on this generation of young white folks who had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Those reasons notwithstanding, I understand that all this doesn't necessarily establish that affirmative action is just. I recognize that. Nonetheless, it is hard for me to take protestations of a system designed to enhance minority involvement in positions of power seriously when 1) the advocated replacement would enhance the majority stranglehold on those positions of power and 2) if economic class was really the problem that one wanted to try remedying then the natural and most logical culprit for all the frustration should be legacy admits- not scapegoating middle class Blacks.

TITCR

I didn't know we were debating legacy admits.  What has that to do with AA?  Who's scapegoating middle class blacks?  We're just pointing out that the current system doesn't take into consideration that minorities are not a homogeneous group.  Obama's kids aren't deprived.  They have access to a great education.  Will they suffer from 'stereotype threat' when both mommy and daddy are Harvard educated lawyers?  If middle class minorities decide to go to law school, shouldn't they be evaluated the same way I am?  If for instance, they get a 167 on their LSAT, they'll get into law school.  You don't need to get into Harvard to be a lawyer.  I believe in diversity of thought, not skin tone. 

As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

Thanks for the precious gift, oh benevolent master.

Yeah right.

You always come off as really bitchy.  Insert bitchy retort here.  You should try and work on that.

It's cool if you think I'm bitchy.  You come off as immature, witlessly insolent, disingenuous, and covertly racist.  I pity you.

Thank you for proving my point.

[OperaAttorney]

Affirmative action isn't a program where whites are being systematically denied admission to most colleges and universities. Trust me, white folks still command a significant portion of the slots at American Law Schools. Affirmative Action is simply a measure that limits the amount of the pie you can have. And no, you can't have it all. That's selfish.

There are plenty of ways to justify the burden affirmative action places on this generation of young white folks who had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Those reasons notwithstanding, I understand that all this doesn't necessarily establish that affirmative action is just. I recognize that. Nonetheless, it is hard for me to take protestations of a system designed to enhance minority involvement in positions of power seriously when 1) the advocated replacement would enhance the majority stranglehold on those positions of power and 2) if economic class was really the problem that one wanted to try remedying then the natural and most logical culprit for all the frustration should be legacy admits- not scapegoating middle class Blacks.

TITCR

I didn't know we were debating legacy admits.  What has that to do with AA?  Who's scapegoating middle class blacks?  We're just pointing out that the current system doesn't take into consideration that minorities are not a homogeneous group.  Obama's kids aren't deprived.  They have access to a great education.  Will they suffer from 'stereotype threat' when both mommy and daddy are Harvard educated lawyers?  If middle class minorities decide to go to law school, shouldn't they be evaluated the same way I am?  If for instance, they get a 167 on their LSAT, they'll get into law school.  You don't need to get into Harvard to be a lawyer.  I believe in diversity of thought, not skin tone. 

As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

Thanks for the precious gift, oh benevolent master.

Yeah right.

You always come off as really bitchy.  Insert bitchy retort here.  You should try and work on that.

It's cool if you think I'm bitchy.  You come off as immature, witlessly insolent, disingenuous, and covertly racist.  I pity you.

Thank you for proving my point.

Fo' sho!    You've proven my point as well.

[AkhilAmar]

Given that discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent with each successive generation, the justification for AA to correct past wrongs is starting to run dry.

Discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent?  In the United States of America?  That statement is very revealing of your limited knowledge on the subject matter at hand.  The Jena 6 alone destroys your argument.  We could also add the Genarlow Wilson case, the entire manner in which the federal government failed to handle hurricane Katrina in N.O., the Sean Bell shooting by the police in NYC, the dragging of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, TX....

And those are just the ones that make the headlines. 

What you meant to say is that discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent TO YOU.

Successful opponents of race based AA know better than to attempt to say discrimination doesn't exist anymore.  That's a losing argument flying in the face of thousands of cases of discrimination that pervade our society still to this day.  Rather, successful opponents of race based AA acknowledge that discrimination still exists and take the "two wrongs don't make a right" approach by integrating race based AA into that long list of discriminatory acts that still plague our society.  If you're going to be against race based AA, at least be realistic about it.

Another thing I don’t understand is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade such discrimination (for any and all people), so do the implementers of AA just say “oh well, that doesn’t apply to this situation?”

Actually, to briefly answer your question, no it doesn't.

Since you say that you don't understand it, perhaps we can shed some light on the Civil Rights Act and it's purpose.

First, it is notable to observe that you're confusing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (congressional legislation based on the Commerce Clause of Art. I in the Constitution) with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Title I of the Civil Rights Act was created to prohibit discrimination in voting as a direct response to the discriminatory practices of whites in the south that prevented blacks and other minorities from voting based on their race (which several states are still being reprimanded by the federal government for even in 2007); Title II was created to prevent the white hotel, motel and restaurant owners at the time from discriminating against providing service to blacks and other minorities; Titles III and IV dealt with prohibiting segregated schools; and Titles V, VI, and VII dealt with discrimination in government agencies, any agency that receives federal funding, and most notably, for discriminating against people in the employment setting.  Today the Act is most commonly known for Title VII - employment discrimination cases.

None of these Titles deal with your question that you posed up above.  In other words, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit Affirmative Action in college/law school admissions.  It allows the federal government to prohibit de jure segregation in schools, discrimination in voting, discrimination in employment, and a few other enumerated items.  The rest is left up to the states.

That's where the 14th Amendment comes into play - it regulates the states and requires them to give "Equal Protection" of the laws to the people.

And to further answer your question, no the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit Affirmative Action either for the reasons mentioned here:  http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,92702.msg2404945.html#msg2404945

Perhaps I do have limited knowledge of the issue at hand.

But, last time I checked one of the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nom. is half African American.

60 years ago Obama would have been giving up his seat at the front of the bus for white folks,  and in modern times he and his wife are HLS educated, and he has a shot at winning the presidential race.

How many white people would have considered voting for an African American in the 1960's?

If that doesn't show less discrimination you're crazy.

Public policies like AA create more discrimination than they prevent (in modern times anyway).

Do you know of anybody who actively doesn't like people strictly based on race? I don't, but I have a feeling I would have known many in years past.

Your passion for the topic at hand is causing you to distort the reality of discrimination in modern times to better suit your argument. As evidenced by you turning my phrase "discrimination is becoming less and less prevalent" into "discrimination doesn't exist anymore."

[t...]

Wonderful rebuttal.

I learned a lot.

[AkhilAmar]

Read the thread. Hell, read any thread in this damn subforum. Here's what not to do: waltz in and make a pronouncement that countless others before you have also made, and do so in a way that implies that you think you are saying something new and insightful.

Thanks.

HERE'S what not to do: waltz in and be a total female dog to someone because they didn't spend hours of their day to read a thread where your own elitist opinions are so very prevalent.

And to so authoritatively suggest that I meant to be "new and insightful" is almost as rude as your overall disposition; as is evident in many other threads.

Thanks.

[dashrashi]

You can turn that filter off. That way you can call me a female dog unimpeded.

 

(taking a page from the kinder, gentler tj.)

(beeteedubs, common message board courtesy would dictate reading the thread, and commenting when one has something to add to the discussion. NB: that's "to add," not "to say.")

As is to be expected, the ones promulgating the unfair race-based affirmative action, rather than a socio-economic system, are the ones who just can't quite wrap their heads around how legacy is quite different from any other advantage.

The gall of affirmative action proponents attacking what feeds their beloved current system is striking. 

It has to do with this cute thing called capitalism, not sure if you've ever been exposed...

This is one of the more substance-less things I've read on the board. Thanks for that.

Substance-free is the way to be.

[AkhilAmar]

Wonderful rebuttal.

I learned a lot.

Again, I don't have time to bust out statues and studies on AA to post on LSD (sorry to all of you that pride yourselves on doing substantive research to post on here).

Nevertheless, it wasn't a good rebuttal and it wasn't insightful. Point taken. Agreed.

[AkhilAmar]

I'm officially retiring from LSD (too many elitist liberal a**holes on here).

As for you dashrashi, women like you are the reason domestic violence laws have to be in place; I hope you graduate top of your class at HLS and eventually become the first female president of the U.S. Then one of your ex's comes along and assassinates you. cheers.

[t...]

Wonderful rebuttal.

I learned a lot.

Again, I don't have time to bust out statues and studies on AA to post on LSD (sorry to all of you that pride yourselves on doing substantive research to post on here).

Well, we're all at a loss, then.

You know, cause none of us have read these mystifying studies.

I'll wait, though. I'm eager to learn.

[dashrashi]

I myself would love for him to bust out a statue. The Thinker, perhaps?