A 'PROGESSIVE' ARGUMENT AGAINST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Makes sense to me. And probably would have made sense to such pioneering civil rights leaders as Martin Luther King.

Too bad civil rights in America has turned into an amoral shakedown industry, fueled by the likes of Jesse Jackson!

Progressive Arguments Against:

1 - It isn't Fair

2 - It makes me Feel Icky

3 - That Other Guy is For It and He's Not Nice

The people who push these rules already have cushy jobs and privileges. As long as they're OK, they have no qualms about building their "just society" on the backs of somebody else.

Just as long as it's somebody else's tax money and somebody else's suffering, no problemo.

Preferences based on race, religion, gender etc, drive wedges between members of our society. Some feel eititled and others feel crapped on.
Perhaps some good has been done but in most instances affirmative action is just wrong and devisive.

That's really good and very funny.

thanx

Next time you hear a white so-called progressive arguing for so-called affirmative action, ask if it should apply to their kid's college admission. And if their kid is a teen or older, inquire if they've asked their kid about this, and what did the kid say. Good for a laugh!

Will Affirmative Action Survive?
BY Professor KIM FORDE-MAZRUI (U.Va. School of Law)
Source: http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/pdf/Will_Affirm_Action_Survive.pdf

The last time the Supreme Court addressed whether schools of higher education may consider race in the admissions process, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court essentially said, “Sometimes, but not with quotas.” Most experts predict the Court will revisit the issue since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit last month, in Grutter v. Bollinger, upheld Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. With seven new justices on the Court since Bakke, and several decisions that reveal a Court increasingly hostile to affirmative action, Grutter may well end affirmative action in higher education. That would be a mistake. Centuries of slavery followed by another century of legalized oppression created an underclass recognizable by race, which America should not now abandon.

LOOKING TO BAKKE Barbara Grutter challenged the practice at the University of Michigan Law School of considering the race of minority applicants, which Michigan defended as necessary to assemble a student body with diverse experiences and perspectives. The District Court held Michigan’s policy unconstitutional. The 6th Circuit reversed, relying on Bakke. Discerning the meaning of Bakke is complicated by its fractured nature. Bakke invalidated a state medical school’s policy of reserving a percentage of seats for racial minorities. Justice Lewis Powell Jr. concluded that the quota was unconstitutional, but that some attention to race was constitutional to achieve a diverse student body. Four justices joined Powell’s conclusion that the quota was invalid, while Justice William Brennan Jr., joined by three other justices, concurred with Powell that some attention to race was permissible. Thus one majority voted to invalidate the quota, while another voted to permit race as one of several admissions criteria. Further, only Powell endorsed the use of race to achieve diversity, while the other four justices approving the use of race cited remedying past societal discrimination as the appropriate justification. The 6th Circuit concluded that Powell’s opinion was controlling, and that if more recent cases call Bakke into question, it is for the Supreme Court to clarify.

DEVELOPING DOCTRINE The Court left unresolved in Bakke the standard of judicial scrutiny applicable to racially preferential affirmative action. But in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989), the Court decided that state-sponsored racial preferences are subject to “strict scrutiny,” which means that such policies will be upheld only if they are “necessary” or “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling” interest. The following year, in Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1990), the Court held the federal government to a more lenient standard. But it held in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) that federal affirmative action is also subject to strict scrutiny. As to what purposes are sufficiently “compelling” to justify racial preferences, the case law suggests there are at most two: remedying past discrimination and assembling a diverse group of people in certain contexts, such as educational settings. To remedy past discrimination, a state must identify with “particularity” the discrimination to be remedied, and design the preference to benefit only those persons who were discriminated against and only to the degree necessary to counteract the effect of the discrimination. The Court, since Bakke, has rejected preferences designed to compensate for the effects of unspecified historic or societal discrimination. Thus, in Croson, the Court held unconstitutional a city’s racial quota in awarding construc-

Will Affirmative Action Survive? Grutter v. Bollinger asks the Supreme Court. tion contracts because the policy failed to ensure adequately that the minority firms who benefited had been victims of identified discrimination in the local industry. With respect to whether diversity is sufficiently compelling, the signs are unfavorable. In support of diversity is Powell’s individual opinion in Bakke. What remains of his opinion will probably depend on Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the swing vote in affirmative action cases. In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), a case that preceded Croson, O’Connor cited with apparent approval Powell’s diversity reasoning in Bakke. Subsequently in Croson, however, O’Connor said that racial preferences should be limited to remedying specific discrimination, suggesting that diversity is insufficient. Also, although Metro Broadcasting upheld a racial diversity program, the four dissenting justices, including O’Connor, are now usually in the majority in affirmative action cases. O’Connor’s dissent in Metro Broadcasting thus suggests how the conservative majority would rule today. O’Connor criticized as stereotypical the assumption that racial diversity would contribute to broadcast diversity, and also criticized broadcast diversity as too vague a rationale to justify racial preferences. Similarly, in two other lines of cases, the Court, with O’Connor’s support, has rejected as stereotypical the assumption that race correlates with juror or voter perspective. Michigan denied that its affirmative action policy was intended to remedy past discrimination—most likely because it would have been effectively impossible for the school to design an affirmative action program with that goal. The Court’s requirement that past discrimination be identified with particularity would seem to require that a school identify the time, place and manner of past discrimination, and identify who, among its applicant pool, were victims of such discrimination, and how such discrimination impaired their ability to qualify for admission under race-neutral standards. Realistically, no school of higher education could meet this standard. The only plausible basis on which to justify Michigan’s policy is the one it relied on—to achieve a diverse student body. The problem the university faces is not whether intellectual diversity in an academic setting is important; the problem is in using racial diversity to achieve it. The Court’s skepticism about using race to predict other traits suggests it would reject as “stereotypical” the assumption that racial diversity correlates with intellectual diversity. Furthermore, even were the Court to accept a correlation between race and student perspective, the Court’s demand in other affirmative action cases for definite standards regarding the manner in which race is to be used suggests it would view diversity as unduly vague. The implications of the Court’s ultimate decision in Grutter are not limited to public colleges and universities. Private schools, which represent almost 60 percent of the four thousand institutions of higher education in the United States, may be just as legally vulnerable. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the same discrimination by all schools receiving federal funds as the Constitution prohibits by public schools. Accordingly, if the Court in Grutter holds unconstitutional Michigan’s racial preferences, then such preferences would also violate the Civil Rights Act when practiced by schools receiving federal funds. Since virtually all private schools depend on federal funding, Grutter could end racial preferences by all schools of higher education. Seeing the writing on the wall, several public colleges have turned to “alternative action,” policies designed to create racial diversity without racial preferences. Some, for example, are experimenting with “class-based” affirmative action in which weight is given to the socioeconomic background of applicants. Two difficulties face these efforts. First, despite their use of race-neutral criteria, such programs may be constitutionally vulnerable because of the race-conscious purpose motivating them. Equally problematic, economic- based preferences are unlikely to admit meaningful numbers of minority students because whites overwhelmingly dominate the pool of economically disadvantaged applicants who are adequately prepared for higher education, especially for the more competitive schools. Indeed, Michigan considered race-neutral alternatives, and rejected them because of their ineffectiveness in achieving racial diversity.

GETTING BEYOND RACE? Grutter presents the Court with a choice: whether to mandate complete colorblindness or, alternatively, to preserve some discretion in schools to create educational environments as diverse as the society their graduates will serve. Racial preferences are certainly regrettable, and America’s history demonstrates how race may be used to oppress. The tragic consequences of that history persist, however, in the stark disparities between racial groups. The average black child born today is exceedingly more likely than the average white child to be raised in poverty, in a broken family, in a community marked by substance abuse, violent crime, and poor quality schools. Unless we assume that along with darker skin a child of color biologically inherits a propensity to fail, to commit crime, or to die a violent death, we should recognize that these conditions result from generations of injustice whose effects will take effort and time to overcome. To ignore racial differences in the name of colorblindness is to guarantee their perpetuation. The day when race no longer matters will not arrive until we take active measures —affirmative action—to provide opportunities for minorities to educate themselves. If the Court decides to revisit Bakke, it would do well to recall the late Justice Harry Blackmun’s admonition in that case: “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot—we dare not—let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial supremacy.”

Author Kim Forde-Mazrui is professor of law and Barron F. Black Research Professor at the University of Virginia. He teaches and writes about race and constitutional law, and is the author of “The Constitutional Implications of Race-Neutral Affirmative Action,” Georgetown Law Journal (2000). He is a former employee of the University of Michigan, where he also received his undergraduate and law degrees.

Why not also demand that Jesse's son Yusef Jackson resign from his U.Va. Law graduate status, dating back to 1994? Check out the following scandal that Linda Chavez has impressively made available to us:

http://www.ceousa.org/html/update/update.html

"A detailed, 50-page study released by the Center for Equal Opportunity
concludes that racial discrimination is widespread in Virginia law school
admissions. The report focuses on the three Virginia public law schools --
the University of Virginia, William & Mary, and George Mason University --
and reveals odds favoring black applicants as high as 731 to 1. To put it in
other terms: A student with an LSAT score of 160 and an undergraduate GPA of
3.25 had a 95 percent chance of admission into U.Va. if he or she was black,
but only a 3 percent chance of admission if white, Hispanic or Asian."

Here are some little known facts:

"After graduation recently, 2.5 million American seniors enrolled in either
a two-year or a four-year college. Almost a million did not. They were
overwhelmingly poor, male and white. Much to the surprise of social
scientists who traditionally have looked for educational problems among
minorities, low-income black and Hispanic men are more likely to go to
college right out of high school than white guys. So are young women of any
background, in fact."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22619-2002Oct26.html

By the way, Cicero, it's "no problema" not problemo.

Anyway, as my wife is Dominican and we spend a great deal of time in that country, I just thought I'd throw in that correction. I also want to say that my friends who happen to be black, hispanic or asian, or anything else for that matter, as I just happen to be white, would blanch at the thought that any of their achievements were because of race or gender favoritism. Affirmative action was to be a temporary bandaide to give minorities a leg up. This plan was to be phased out over time. Just like the useless Department of Energy. Anyway, enough for now. Be well all.

Great article.

I feel the best argument against affirmative action lies in the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, which basically states that this initiative irreparably HARMS precisely the group of people it is designed to help. The reason is rooted in the psychology of the ACCEPTANCE OF VICTIMHOOD by any individual or group. If you are a parent, or managing an employee, or even if your relationship is that of friend or foe, the last thing you want to accept from them or bequeath to them, or in this case inflict upon them, would be justification for lack of success or performance, in other words, provide them with an excuse for failure. This harms the recipient of the allowed excuse to absolve himself of responsibilty, thereby insuring future failure.

The government provides the excuse, blacks buy into it, abject failure ensues with no small consequences to everyone.

The second best argument against affirmative action has to do with the fact that it pits whites against blacks, thereby perpetuating racial consciousness, completely obliterating the gains made under Martin Luther King's advocacy, and also summarily taints the successes of today's successful blacks who have to operate in an environment made antagonistic by the constant allure of victimhood. This country may never be colorblind, but it had a chance to make significant progress in race relations until the concept of affirmative action became, in practice, reverse discrimination.

I assume you mean "Dominican" as in "from the Dominican Republic" rather than as in "from Dominica" (since the former has more than 100 times the population of the latter), but wouldn't the same adjective apply to both countries?

King's words from 1963 are often quoted. I wonder if he addressed the issue of racial preferences in any of his later speeches or writings. I suspect that he would have found a way to justify them, as most other civil rights leaders did, but I could be wrong.

I also want to say that my friends who happen to be black, hispanic or asian, or anything else for that matter, as I just happen to be white, would blanch at the thought that any of their achievements were because of race or gender favoritism.

Well, I'm sure that American minorities would love to believe that they deserve any successes that they have acheived, but sadly, with policies like AA in place, they'll never know if they could have succeeded without getting preferences that they did not deserve. Nor will the rest of us looking upon their acheivements. When I see a successful black person, I am skeptical of their true abilities, because I know that the position they hold was likely, to one degree or another handed to them on a platter. It's the same skepticism I reserve for children of rich parents, and I think it's well-deserved. Only ending "affirmative action" (racist discrimination against whites) will solve this problem. But it's easier to call names, and tell people like me that I am an evil racist than it is to solve the problem.

Interesting tidbit from the Washington Post article:

They [non-college white males] do work that needs to be done – building houses, running backhoes, riveting airplanes, surveying land and fixing the BMWs of upscale college types who occasionally might call them rednecks.

One might add, they grow most of the country's food.