Replies

I have been keepin goff these threads, but.....

There is a big difference between Government Mandated Affirmative Action and Industry Initiated Hiring Goals, and, if such things are necessary at all, it is far better that industry initiate them than to have the Fed's mandate them!

FWIW: I think the MSM is having a great time with Meiers - they can just pick out any little fact and the conservatives will go nuts about it for days.....

There is a big difference between Government Mandated Affirmative Action and Industry Initiated Hiring Goals, and, if such things are necessary at all, it is far better that industry initiate them than to have the Fed's mandate them!

:-)

When Miers assumed the Presidency of the Texas Bar Association in June 1992, her responsibilities included making every effort to attain the goals and objectives set forth in the Association's Strategic Plan. The views attributed to Miers were established objectives of the Association's plan long before she became its president.

I think the MSM is having a great time with Meiers - they can just pick out any little fact and the conservatives will go nuts about it for days.....

Yep.

There is a big difference between Government Mandated Affirmative Action and Industry Initiated Hiring Goals, and, if such things are necessary at all, it is far better that industry initiate them than to have the Fed's mandate them!

The problem with that argument is that when our fearless leaders on the court go to inside the beltway cocktail parties they become convinced they are superior to the flyover rubes and should make their whims our laws. To expect a Supreme Court justice to resist the temptation to "help minorities and women" while on the bench if that is a major goal of their life is to ask for the impossible in this day and age of ultra-activist courts.

We need to end reverse racism in this country as soon as possible. There should be no excuses or equivocations on ending this evil that has harmed all Americans.

A Republican nominee must be determined and courageous on this point.

Dump her, Mr. President.

Now.

A "conservative" CEO would not have the multicultural goals, so it would not be an issue - unless like Miers you sought to make it an issue.

The idea that merit, not skin color, is from where you should achieve your success is not simply a "legal" matter, it is a moral matter, throughout society. It is no less pernicious in the body politic when companies and associations do it than when government enforces it.

The only morally legitimate place for proper consideration of the issue is that when looking for candidates hiring officials should not be discriminating on race, gender and ethnic origin in terms of who they are willing to consider - end of "non-discriminatory" requirement. As an adjunct, officials can be sure that they are casting their net wide enough, in a non-disciminatory manner.

But, once the candidates are found, merit should determine the choice, not "affirmative action" goals. If your "affirmative action" of not discriminating against candidates was truly not discriminatory, then, based on merit you will be selecting "minorty" candidates from time to time, without any goal setting. And, having been selected based on merit, they will handsomely "represent" their "minority" group (to those who need to look for such things).

There has been a great study done that looked at affirmative action in the top tier law schools. What it found is that it is costing many "minority" students the possibility of a carreer in law.

For those who enter the top tier law schools as an "affirmative action" choice, the drop-out rate, the rate at which they fail their major courses and the rate at which they fail to pass the bar is much higher for them than it is for "minorities" that enter lower echelon law schools. Also, ten years later it is the "minority" students that entered the lower echelon law schools who are earning more money and are further along in their legal careers, at higher rates than the "affirmative action" students that graduated from the top tier schools.

These are statistics of affirmative action students and they do not include "minorities" who had really great college-prep high schools, graduated high-up in their class and entered a top tier law school based on academic merit - of which there are many.

The study was able to identify the "affirmative action" role in the enrollment and look specifically at the experience of those for whom that role applied; and compare it to students who avoided the affirmative action pull to a "higher" school.

The author's advice was that students should be wary of succumbing to the pressure of the affirmative action enticements at the top tier schools, if their high school experience and academic performance have really not prepared them for those top schools.

Neither should law firms be playing social-scientist with peoples lives.

Harriet Miers was wrong then and she will be wrong for the court. The benevolent utopian impluse is a strong one and not likely one she will resist; having not resisted it in the past.