quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

Constitutional or not, it is a public good.

Handicap accessible is a public good. Letting students in with less credentials is a public good. I wouldn't suggest lowering graduation or completion standards is a public good, but assistance and broadening opportunity in education seems a better investment than assistance and broadening opportunity in Corrections.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
As for achieving the dream, there is no denying the fact that yesterday's opinion is going to prevent a significant number of blacks, latinos and other people of color from gaining admission to colleges and the education they need to achieve their dreams. Folks like Lane may think that is a good thing. I do not.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Race based AA in college admissions did not keep a white applicant out of an equivalent institution when an African American who just misses the line gets in. That is what wax happening as it relates to white citizens. I know that bc I read the University of Michigan Law School Admissions case.

These statements serve as a perfect example of the “magical thinking of liberals” that often makes real conversations impossible. I realize that these quotes are from two different people, but they illustrate a premise that is held by those who promote AA. It could be stated:

“Without affirmative action, colored students will be denied access. But with AA in place those students of color will gain access, and the white and Asian students who they displace will just go to “equivalent institutions”.

How can these two ideas coexist? Wouldn’t those “equivalent institutions” have also served as a fall back for students of color, had AA not been in place??

You can’t have it both ways. To claim that you can is disingenuous.

If we can’t agree that the consequences of allowing/outlawing AA are that it will help one group at the expense of another, then how any real discussion take place?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

The White Student who “qualified”for a top tier school will get into a top tier school. The African American student who goes to Harvard because of race based based AA in college admission will not get into another Harvard level school without the policy. They will go to a school like the University of Kentucky (a good school no doubt).

See the the difference. The “qualifying” white citizen has the option to go to one of those schools. The just miss the cut African American wo AA does not. We know that less African American citizens have been denied access not only ti education, but the cultural tools that make “performance” a true indicator. The quality of education for all students is enhanced by having theses experiences on campus.

That is what the prior cases rationalized.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

Constitutional or not, it is a public good.

Handicap accessible is a public good. Letting students in with less credentials is a public good. I wouldn't suggest lowering graduation or completion standards is a public good, but assistance and broadening opportunity in education seems a better investment than assistance and broadening opportunity in Corrections.

I’m having a hard time accepting the idea that moving more students of color into college will mean that fewer will end up incarcerated. It’s a noble idea, but the students helped by AA are those who were already upwardly mobile. Those who are at risk are way too far down to be helped be AA in college admissions.

Decades of AA would seem to support this, as we do have more students of color in colleges, but they are still over represented in the penal system.

In my experience, would be ne’er-do-wells, black, white or otherwise, are the ones who end up in the revolving door of our criminal justice system. The vast majority of those kids as so far from being “college material” that AA will never help them. Hell, 95% of them never finished high school, so how would AA help them?

To that point: community colleges are open to anyone, yet the streets are filled with a virtual rainbow of young people from all backgrounds who would rather sell drugs and chase their vices, than sit in a classroom.(HB anyone??)

Our K-12 education system is failing in some areas, while flourishing in others. Minorities are disproportionately affected by these failing schools. This is the root of the problem, and the most basic level at which public policy could attempt to address the issue.

Fixing schools is difficult and expensive, so instead we offer 18 year olds a path to college. Unfortunately the kids headed for incarceration have already headed down a far different path by the time they are 18.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Only a closed-minded idiot would not see the truth in the phrase: “Only racists go about throwing the slur of racist.”

Just like Roberts implied…if you want racism to go away…quit making decisions based on race. Pretty simple concept actually…but the simple often flies over the head of liberal-blinded people like MM.

Only a person who doesn't have a firm grasp on the English language would advance that argument. There are plenty of folks, and I count myself among them, who correctly characterize some people as racist. So stating does not make me a racist.

And, you are an idiot if you can't understand that concept.

quote:

Accuse me of racism myself, and I'll suspect you of protecting your own racist thoughts.

quote:

……not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
For all the reason above you are wrong. Or go read the Alabama Gerrymandering Case. You will read Chief Justice Robert’s history lesson.

Refute those 4 points.

The dues se being treated is not skin color, but how society treated those of a minority skin color.

Such as refusing African Americans from accessing capital while allowing that capital to follow to white farmers who built generational wealth. See my Alabama family.

2 wrongs don’t make a right. The people of my lifetime did nothing.

Or

Zoning and Equitable Servitudes on land that kept African Americans out of good communities affecting wealth generation.

People are going to live where and how they want. No rules are going to change that they get around and group with whom they choose. Quit trying to legislate differently, it only throws gasoline on a fire.

MLK Jr prior to his death gave a speech that resources of the state would have to be used to correct the harm done by society to African Americans.

He was wrong there.

We are not judging by skin.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what is/was happening

We are acknowledging everyone is not playing on the same ball field.

Everyone in the USA has any opportunity they WANT…end of story. You can’t legislate the WANT.

The problem is not the skin tone. The problem is what we (the White Christian Majority and Governments we set up) has done and continue to do to keep political power insulated.

“ ”

That is what you argue due any means necessary to see the right people use political power.

I have never said “any means necessary.”

If that means distracting out African Americans do their votes cannot eclipse the right people’s votes all the good.

Never said that either. But I am against these NGO’s exploiting these groups and harvesting their ballots in a coercive manner…as took place in metropolitan GA.

It that means repealing the Equal Protection Amendments; all the good.

Everyone was as equal as it gets in the USA in my life through the early 2000s. Want to see inequality…spend some time in Latin America or Africa.

If that means as many barriers to voting as a physical act the Courts Will permit; all the good.

People need to WANT to vote. That means putting forth the effort to make it happen.

If we win enough ejections the Courts will re-write Fed Law to let us do all this stuff; all the good.

Rewrite!? Normalize!!!


The Sovereign Legislature Inanity just needs two more votes; all the good.

No, I have no problem identifying racists.

If you agreed with AA…it was easy for you…simply look in the mirror.

To paraphrase Aristotle, “A person is what they regularly do.”

100%^^^
The people constantly throwing the slur “racist” ARE indeed the racists.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not 2 wrongs fir those reasons already stated. You just say so. That dues not make it so.

To treat everyone fairly is not to treat everyone the same. If you honestly do not believe that, you need to do some serious thinking and get out of your own space.

A really bad case comes to mind to prove that point, but it was a juve matter. I cannot reveal the horrific details. That young man sent me a High School graduation card w a thank you letter.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Ignoring racism does not kill racism off.
True, but firstly, the AA policy has caused racist policy, andis perpetuating evil, albeit on a different group.

Allowing racism either individually or institutionally to go unexposed, unstated helps nothing.
True, but additionally, not all that is claimed to be racism is racism.

As the dissent opinion l sets up, race based affirmative action on college admissions is not racists bc some minorities are disadvantaged by the policy. This is because the evil done to African Americans that the policy tries to correct is narrowly tailored to that specific racial issue.
I tend to disagree. While I can agree that certain groups have been discriminated against in the past, and that there are still problems, AA was a very poor attenmpt to fix it by causing the same behaviors (in inverse fashion) to what you are trying to remove.

No one has to agree. The majority does not. The majority sees the minority v minority dichotomy as a distraction w a difference.
I don't get what this means.

That is fine, but Chief Justice Dicta concerning how to end racism is no more than personal opinion. He is wrong. Why is he wrong, go read his opinion in the Alabama GOP gerrymandering case. He tells us
I would propose that if AA is a personal opinion as to how to end racism, its 1. failed, and 2. poor policy.


Now, here is the what I have gathered from your previous post which is why you philosophically disagree w the dissent:

1) Slavery as practiced in the South is permitted by God/Bible. Thus, we should just let it ago. The system has been rejected. That is good enough. It was not a moral issue.
If that was clearly stated, then bad on him. While slavery may well have been historically practiced, and it was not condoned in the bible, the bible was also pretty clear that we are to love our neigbor as ourselves, and that leaving the imperfect institution of government to government (aka free will) was the take God was putting on it. In other words, God was saying follow the law... the violation of biblical code will come at your judgement.

Slavery and treating folks poorly over things they have no control over is not moral.

2) African Americans (and Latino/an Americans are by and large, Or class, trouble makers.
Statistically? or innately? How do you propose that we as a society are to fix this? I would posit that ignoring it isn't right or good. I think changing the rules to make some crime "ok" is just as racist (low expectations) as blaming race for crime.

3) Business should be allowed to discriminate based on race as it is the owner’s proghtive.
While it may not be moral, free association exists. I find it hard to force the issue- especially if the business owner doesn't care about profits enough to do it. Thought control is pretty tough. Additionally, using a purely statistical view of it can be false. If you are a hairstylist who is really good at cornrow braids, your clientele is likely to be predominantly folks who want cornrow braids. Similarly, if you are an expert with flowing hair, I doubt you will have too many bald guys there.

4) States as a matter of law should get to decide districts, and if races can marry or attend the same schools. The state and “local leaders” are best situated to decide what harm comes from such activities. In addition, that power is what the Framers wanted the state to have. If some African Americans put out (you cannot escape such policies harm us all), so be it.

5) Do not teach children in history class the object horror of slavery and Jim Crow, not that the primary institutional reason the South left to Union ti keep slaves. That is just teaching them to hate themselves, and the “Lost Cause” is just and real. The List Cause is s lie from the pit of Hell, by the way.

While I agree that teaching Jim Crow and the history of racisim is essential, I would also state that there can well be too much emphasis on past greivance. Look at many areas of the world where there is ethnic hatred. There may well be a reason for it, but it really doesn't serve any good to perpetuate it. I would suggest that how you present the history is important, as is its relative emphasis as opposed to the overall curriculum.

With regards to the racism subject, while I agree it needs to be brought up, and it is a vital subject, its not the only one. I think that it should not be taught outside of history/civics and is something that should be brought up only after students have mastered reading, writing, and basic mathematics.

These rationale is exactly why racism is not dead, and needs to be put to attention and correction.
Again, I don't disagree that racism is not dead... and doubt that it can be fully eradicated due to biological behaviors. While I can certainly agree it needs to be put to attention, I disagree that education or law can put it to full correction. Improvement? Sure.

Don't tell me that you actually believe life can be made fair, given your family history that you have shared.

Do have the ability to identify racists. They do racist things like advocating a repeal of the Equal Protection Amendments such as the current GOP Texas Written Platform Do you think those are not abused or could not be made better? , think the KKK has done good people in it Historically, while the KKK was always a racist organization, earlier in its history it was more mainstream. I think if you find that an ancestor was a member, while it may be on the wrong side of history, it doesn't mean that everyone who was a member was evil. , or would like business’s to be permitted to refuse service to racial minorities if the business wants. I would prefer that businesses not do that, but similarly, if someone does not want to do business with you, it behooves you to find someone else as they will do a better job.

That is just the non-violent examples. However, are such policies really nonviolent when we look at the social harm to minorities if implemented?

As I said early in, I cannot argue w Chief Justice Robert’s actual legal analysis in the Majority Opinion. That does not mean the Dissent analysis is wrong. That means they undergo the same process and reach a different result.

Now, for the Majority to be correct and abandoned controlling precedent one has to except the minority v minority distinction.
No, it is that they decided that using racism to combat racism is wrong... "Let the beatings continue until morale improves."

The dissent makes a better argument not to then Chief Justice Roberts’ thoughts on how to end racism.
In your opinion. Morally, if racism is wrong, its wrong. Utilizing it to gain something is still wrong.

I am if the view, the Equal Protection Clause requires all minorities in the application of AA to be treated equally. Hence, I would agree in result, but not in rational because I see the minority v minority issue as faking a compelling state interest.
I think you are off a bit. The equal protection clause applies to ALL citizens.

A Dissent would say that was never the Compelling State interest that was being addressed in the prior cases. That objection being the Compelling Interest has always been to advance African Americans I do not agree with us what is stated in the page of the University of Michigan Law School Case.
The compelling interest is to develop a colorblind society, not to advance minorities. All are to be equal.

That case identifies the benefits of diversity as the Compelling Interest. Again, quotas have long been rejected by the S. Ct.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not 2 wrongs fir those reasons already stated. You just say so. That dues not make it so.

Ditto to you. In fact, as of lately, you saying it gives me skepticism.

To treat everyone fairly is not to treat everyone the same. If you honestly do not believe that, you need to do some serious thinking and get out of your own space.

I think and pray every morning before most get up. I am comfortable with my thoughts and positions.

A really bad case comes to mind to prove that point, but it was a juve matter. I cannot reveal the horrific details. That young man sent me a High School graduation card w a thank you letter.
Happy you helped someone.

quote:

1) Slavery as practiced in the South is permitted by God/Bible.

The Bible neither condemns or condones slavery. We do know that God used slave owning men to do His work without rebuke for slave ownership.

Thus, we should just let it ago.

It should just be let go. We as a society evolved past it as was likely God’s plan. Let it go. No one alive today in the USA was a slave or ever owned a slave. It had almost been forgotten…until 0bama revived it.

The system has been rejected. That is good enough.

100%

It was not a moral issue.

It wasn’t. It was a societal evolutionary movement that corrected itself. Had God thought it a moral issue…it would have been addressed by Jesus.

Slavery is over…LONG LONG AGO. It needs to be let go. Not letting it go WILL only lead to continued racial strife. Forgive and forget.

quote:

Had God thought it a moral issue…it would have been addressed by Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Had God thought it a moral issue…it would have been addressed by Jesus.

Kind of funny you don't hold that view on abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Slave ownership and trade is still alive in North Africa. No white people required.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Slave ownership and trade is still alive in North Africa. No white people required.

That exudes the Southern Slave System who started a Civil War to save it and Jim Crowe how?

No excuse. It is gone. We as a society evolved past it…150 years ago. Time to move on.

How does slavery in Africa today have any barring on US Domestic Policy regarding race?

Never said it did. For the life of me…I can’t even believe we are rehashing it — thank you 0bama. It is ancient history now — forget about it.

Your above statement has no relevancy to US Domestic Race Policy. This is because slaver in Africa today has no relationship or nexus to our former system and current policies.

Again never said it did. The comment was made to Roland…who used the term “white man.” The white man did not invent the slave trade and is not the last to leave it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Per the history provided by Justice Roberts in the AL gerrymandering case, and your state’s written GOP plate form to void the Equal Protection Amendments. We have not evolved past anything.

See the 4 points on your policy that we have not evolved past anything.

When you use an example such as slavery exists in N Africa in a debate about race policy in the USA, you are using N African slavery as a justification. You by your own admission have brought up an irrelevant talking point.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Slave ownership and trade is still alive in North Africa. No white people required.

That exudes the Southern Slave System who started a Civil War to save it and Jim Crowe how?

No excuse. It is gone. We as a society evolved past it…150 years ago. Time to move on.

How does slavery in Africa today have any barring on US Domestic Policy regarding race?

Never said it did. For the life of me…I can’t even believe we are rehashing it — thank you 0bama. It is ancient history now — forget about it.

Your above statement has no relevancy to US Domestic Race Policy. This is because slaver in Africa today has no relationship or nexus to our former system and current policies.

Again never said it did. The comment was made to Roland…who used the term “white man.” The white man did not invent the slave trade and is not the last to leave it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Slave ownership and trade is still alive in North Africa. No white people required.

That exudes the Southern Slave System who started a Civil War to save it and Jim Crowe how?

No excuse. It is gone. We as a society evolved past it…150 years ago. Time to move on.

How does slavery in Africa today have any barring on US Domestic Policy regarding race?

Never said it did. For the life of me…I can’t even believe we are rehashing it — thank you 0bama. It is ancient history now — forget about it.

Your above statement has no relevancy to US Domestic Race Policy. This is because slaver in Africa today has no relationship or nexus to our former system and current policies.

Again never said it did. The comment was made to Roland…who used the term “white man.” The white man did not invent the slave trade and is not the last to leave it.

We "evolved" past it?

You are really slinging out some humdinger bullshit today.

We didn't evolve past it, we fought a Civil War over it that cost 600,000 lives. And, the folks against slavery won.