HILL OF BEANS - Bush's No Action On Affirmative Action

New York Press ^ | January, 2003 - Volume 16, Issue 4 | By Christopher Caldwell

[joesnuffy]

Maybe so....
but as Leslie Neilson said to Priscilla Preseley "At least this is our hill, ...and these are our beans..."

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[Nephi]

My enthusiasm has turned disappointment to learn that Bush did what I thought he would do, afterall.

[Uncle Bill]

Sad, isn't it. Discrimination wins.

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[Kryptonite]

This is what I found interesting:

Affirmative action has been fragile since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Back then (if I may simplify), the Court ruled that race-based quotas were illegal, but permitted race to be taken into account as a "plus factor" in admissions. Increasingly over the last two and a half decades the rationale for that plus factor has been "diversity." Diversity, in fact, is the stated rationale behind the University of Michigan’s modus operandi. Unfortunately for proponents of affirmative action, "diversity" has always been a vague concept–and it has never been clear whether, as a matter of law, it was sufficient grounds for flirting with racial discrimination against majorities. In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), a plurality found against an affirmative action program justified on the grounds of diversity. And in the current controversy over the University of Michigan, many conservatives–including Florida Gov. Jeb Bush–have taken Wygant as a starting point for rejecting the diversity rationale. In an amicus curiae brief of his own, filed last week, the Florida governor noted: "This Court specifically indicated that such a theory has no logical stopping point, and would allow discriminatory practices long past the point required by any legitimate remedial purpose… Racial diversity is no more compelling a goal in the higher education context than in the context of other institutions or areas of state decision making."

The root problem is the notion that higher education is not only best-served, but absolutely requires, diversity of races in student populations. As a matter of logic, the goal of such diversity sounds a dell knell to all of the "predominantly black" colleges and universities that are a part of what make this country great. An education at a "predominantly black" college or university would, by definition, be substandard and inadequate, as compared to any other institution which happens to admit a larger percentage of whites or other "non-blacks".

The basic premise that diversity is not only good, but a compelling need, is deeply-flawed and must be rejected by the SCOTUS.

[Uncle Bill]

"The brief does not challenge racial preferences in college admissions. It accepts, in fact, the fact that race-based diversity is a constitutionally proper goal. So in the brief, as opposed to the speech the president made, the administration is not opposed to the goal, but merely Michigan's practice by which it was achieved."

Supreme Court Approves Race-based Admissions - Sandra Day O'Connor cites "compelling interest"

Spin, baby, spin

CFR,AWB,AA, or Memorex?

"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Consort]

The seminar whiners are at it again. Give it up.

[Uncle Bill]

Thomas Sowell: The grand fraud of affirmative action

Bush is a socialist and a fraud

[AAABEST]

The seminar whiners are at it again. Give it up.

Yeah, they're almost as bad as the seminar knee-pad personality cultists who have no core values whatsoever except the success of one single politician. There is no right or wrong, no ideas, no principals ...nuthin'. It's all about the promotion of the figurehead/mascott/idol.

Weirdos who have no damn shame and can never bring themselves to say "this is wrong".

[Consort]

What don't you understand about "Give it up"?

[Consort]

What do they charge for those siminars, or are they free? How long do they take and what do they teach? How often do you practice whining and wishful thinking? Do they tell you to cry whenever you don't get you way so as to envoke a sympathetic response? Are you going to enable people like the Clintons again like you did in '92? Do you think it will work a second time? Will you fool the Conservatives again? Do you think Conservatives are that dumb?

[Consort]

Just make sure you don't do anything that enables the Liberals to get into power like what happened in '92. Don't get radical on us. If you have to attack someone, go after the Liberals. And don't defend the whiners.

[dirtboy]

The seminar whiners are at it again. Give it up

Like hell. I voted for Bush, I've generally supported him, but he and the GOP have completely lost their minds over the past few weeks as they join the Dems in trampling over what's left of the Constitution to pander to voting groups at the expense of fiscal sanity. Bush could have blocked this nonsense with his veto pen, but instead he caved and joined the crowd and egged them on.

The GOP has taken all the notions of limited government and balanced budgets that we fought for in the 1990s and thrown them out the window. I don't know why the Dems are in such a funk about needing to rediscover a message when the GOP seems more than glad to carry their agenda out for them when it comes to social spending...