<p>but not because of their race in and of itself. If a class of black students came through and were suddenly superstars being equally as competitive as a whole as both white and asian students do you think they would still be sought after?</p>
<p>No, because they would be in supply and no longer in demand.
It's not the race that leads to the favoring, the same thing could occur if whites became underrepresented.</p>
<p>But they still are being favored because they're x race and x race is "in demand."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Voters should not be able to vote to limit the freedoms of others (in this case, the freedom of business owners and boards to run their organizations profitably.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I fail to see how race-blind policies limit the freedom of others. Race-blindness dictates that entities cannot discriminate either for or against based on race. I hope you are not suggesting that people should be free to discriminate, as discrimination, be it positive or negative, curtails freedom.</p>
<p>I think what supporters of positive discrimination often do not see is the principle behind race-blindness.</p>
<p>To use my group as an example, I do not believe that Asians should be preferentially treated if our numbers suddenly dropped in the applicant pool. I believe that we should be treated equally, and if that means fewer Asians, so be it. We are not entitled to special treatment by virtue of our being born under the designation ‘Asian.’ We are, however, entitled to equal treatment under the law.</p>
<p>Again, I quote Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke, “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”</p>
<p>PS:</p>
<p>I think Bakke, like Brown, is a case that the supporters of positive discrimination have historically revised to suit their interests. Brown makes no mention whatsoever of “diversity.” It simply struck down the doctrine of “separate but equal” as inherently unequal and thus un-Constitutional. It did not require integration, and in fact, the word “integration” did not appear once in Chief Justice Warren’s opinion.</p>
<p>Bakke upheld affirmative action as legal, but many of the policies favored by the supporters of positive discrimination are proscribed by it, not prescribed.</p>
<p>Same old anti-AA and pro-AA thread. What a yawn.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, its not about you!</p>
<p>its not about what asians think they deserve!</p>
<p>its not about what african americans think they are entitled to!</p>
<p>Whether or not you would feel that asians would be "entitled" to anything if their numbers dropped to underrepresentation in universities, the university would seek out more asian students, and no asian students would be among those in demand. </p>
<p>It's not a matter of who "deserves it" the most, if it was it would be racism and discrimination. But bottom line, it's not about the student, and what they "deserve", its about the school and what they need.</p>
<p>"Brown makes no mention whatsoever of “diversity.” It simply struck down the doctrine of “separate but equal” as inherently unequal and thus un-Constitutional. It did not require integration, and in fact, the word “integration” did not appear once in Chief Justice Warren’s opinion."</p>
<p>Well, Brown I as it is referred to may have made no mention to integration, but, the next year (1955) in Brown II, the court ordered that schools integrate with "all deliberate speed", so, by selectively presenting information, you are misrepresenting the legacy of the Brown cases. </p>
<p>“Again, I quote Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke”</p>
<ul>
<li>You absolutely love this case; I personally love how you like to play down the fact that Justice Powell allowed for race to be used as a factor – just not quotas. I also love how you seem to ignore the most recent precedent set in Grutter and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that race can indeed be used as a factor in college admissions; both cases UPHELD AA, despite how you try to make it seem otherwise. And why did the court decide this in Grutter? That’s right! Diversity! The court ruled that the Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in seeing a diverse student body. </li>
</ul>
<p>You want to quote random justices, eh? Well, I can do that too: Justice O’Connor writing for the majority in Grutter said: </p>
<p>The United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS THAT FLOW FROM A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY”. </p>
<p>Fabrizio, its not about you!</p>
<p>-Let it be said again... It's not about YOU!
Now, I know you're going to respond with some kind of "If you're saying I don't have a right to my opinion..." statement, but, before you do, yes, you have a right to your opinion, and so do I - and mine is that it's not about YOU.</p>
<p>“But bottom line, it's not about the student, and what they "deserve", its about the school and what they need.”</p>
<p>-As it should be.</p>
<p>kk19131,</p>
<p>Misrepresenting the legacy, yes, indeed. I find it interesting that a people who accuses me of this excised the phrase "nonracial basis," which follows the famous "all deliberate speed" part. Well, gee, kk, why don't you tell me what "nonracial basis" means, hmm?</p>
<p>Did I really play down Justice Powell's allowance for race to be used as a factor? Please reread my last paragraph in post 124. It seems that some defender of positive discrimination always ignores my admitting that I do not always agree 100% with those whom I quote. Oh, and I don't think Justice Lewis Franklin Powell is a "random justice."</p>
<p>The key in Justice O'Connor's opinion is "narrowly tailored." It is itself a ridiculously vague requirement, but when school systems abuse it, they can and will be rebuked. See Parents Involved and Meredith. Both school districts in those cases claimed they were following Grutter, but did they? No. They used binary classifications to create "diversity." Some narrow tailoring that is. That's black and white, no pun intended.</p>
<p>Justice Anthony Kennedy is no fan of racial preferences, but he is a supporter of diversity. However, he qualified his support in Parents Involved by saying his support of diversity depends on its definition. Unfortunately, he did not give examples in his controlling opinion, but I firmly believe that his conception of diversity does not associate race-blindness with lessened diversity.</p>
<p>Charisma: “Yes they can, and that's exactly what they do, gay marriage, anyone? Being able to favor one race is hardly a freedom granted to businesses. If it isn't on the bill of rights and voters want to limit that "freedom" (really, I could argue that my freedom is being limited because I can't go out and shoot someone), there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Also, preventing voters from voting the way they want is not only limiting their freedom, but also illegal.”</p>
<p>As I said, voters should not be able to limit the freedom of others. That is why I think (no - I know) gay people should be able to enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else.</p>
<p>I never advocated favoring any race. Anyone who favors a race is a bigot.</p>
<p>Voters should be allowed to vote to limit the rights of people to kill each other. No, you cannot go out and shoot someone, Charisma. That is a negative thing, and is in no way related to businesses or boards composing employee or campus populations in order to create the most effective environments.</p>
<p>There is a difference between liberty and license.</p>
<p>No one mentioned preventing voters from voting the way they want. I question the validity of putting certain issues to a vote.</p>
<p>Charisma: "But they still are being favored because they're x race and x race is "in demand."</p>
<p>Favored is the wrong word, and the wrong concept. Choosing one race over another because you like that race better (or you feel more comfortable with those people, or you think they are superior, or whatever) is favoring a race. Composing an employee group or a class which is most suitable for the marketplace in which you compete is a different thing entirely.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: “I fail to see how race-blind policies limit the freedom of others. Race-blindness dictates that entities cannot discriminate either for or against based on race. I hope you are not suggesting that people should be free to discriminate, as discrimination, be it positive or negative, curtails freedom”</p>
<p>What is this “race-blind” thing? I need to zero in on that for a moment. To me, it sounds like something Caucasians came up with to say, “Ummm, well we agree that having different water fountains and making you sit in the back of the bus was bad. So now let’s make sure that none of us EVER even consider race – we will just pretend it doesn’t exist. Because we have already lost enough power. The last thing we want is for progress to be sped up as good-hearted or profit-minded people try to round out their businesses and institutions.” It just seems, to me, like an attempt to continue to keep URM’s down, or at least to keep non-URM’s up, by pretending to take the higher ground (while in reality attempting not to surrender any more ground).</p>
<p>But back to your original point, about failing to see how race blind policies limit the freedom of others. “Race-blind” is a bunch of baloney. There are racially based cultural groups in this country. You go to China Town or Little Italy for delicious food, or to Harlem for amazing jazz. There are cultural subgroups. There is an African American culture, distinctly different for example from recent African immigrants. There is a Latino culture. </p>
<p>Obama is an American of African descent. People have noticed that. If he became the first Black (and I don’t like the terms “Black” and “White”, because I think they are divisive and limiting, but I will use them to illustrate a point) American president, most Black people would be extra proud. Most everyone, no matter what their background, would feel extra happy (even if they disliked his politics and didn’t vote for him – like me). Just as Irish Americans were over the top about Kennedy being elected. It was HUGE. Every race and ethnic group cheers when one of their own achieves something for the first time, something that makes getting access to the American dream seem like a reality. </p>
<p>Race and ethnicity are real things, and no one is race-blind. No one should be race-blind, or ethnicity-blind. That is a sanitization of humanity. The moral piece is to assign nothing positive or negative (to make no judgments and no assumptions) to an individual because of his or her race (or gender, or sexual preference, or ethnicity, or religion). That is completely different from being BLIND to it. </p>
<p>Acknowledging that there is a Latino or African American market, or that there is demand among the general poulation for diversity, is not the same thing as making assumptions or judgements about individuals because of their race.</p>
<p>Deserves repeating unless anyone missed it:</p>
<p>kk19131 quoting Justice O'Connor:</p>
<p>The United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS THAT FLOW FROM A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY”.</p>
<p>Fabrizio: "It seems that some defender of positive discrimination "</p>
<p>I am against any form of discrimination, positive or negative. I am for allowing businesses and institutions to operate without governmental hobbling.</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>You thanked me for “...demonstrating that you do not understand my point about how to apply a market model to hiring practices and college admissions.” I certainly don't understand. You're talking about markets being race-blind and its all being about selling product. I agreed and pointed out that if you felt this way, then it'd be impossible for any group to be “under-represented.” Why? The quantity that clears the market is the equilibrium quantity. It is the amount that satisfies both the buyers and the sellers. All who want to buy are able to buy all they want, and all who want to sell are able to sell all they want. How can there be “under-representation?” That can be translated as a shortage; that is, there are not enough. But, if the quantity clears the market, then the quantity was certainly enough. Thus, no “under-representation.” I recommend a course that actually teaches free market economics (c.f. Marxism).</p>
<p>Race-blind simply means treating people equally without regard to their race. And, no, it's not a bunch of baloney. Instituting race-blind policies in admissions and employment will not destroy ethnic enclaves. The policies simply state that the institutions will discriminate neither against nor for anyone based on his group identification.</p>
<p>Race is a social construct. In our society, we use it to divide people into artificial distinctions. I dislike any classification that separates people based on “race.” Why divide when you can unite? I think this way, thus I support race-blind policies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The moral piece is to assign nothing positive or negative (to make no judgments and no assumptions) to an individual because of his or her race (or gender, or sexual preference, or ethnicity, or religion)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Couldn't agree more. But, it's difficult to assign neither positive nor negative aspects to an individual based on these factors. So, what's a good solution? See the initiatives set forth by Mr. Ward Connerly.</p>
<p>I would feel a lot better if you defined what “diversity” is to you and gave some examples of what counts as “diversity” in a college campus and what doesn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am for allowing businesses and institutions to operate without governmental hobbling.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet another example of your (hopefully) unconscious defense of segregation. Businesses and institutions still operated despite engaging in gross discrimination half a century ago. Are you suggesting that it was wrong for concerned parents and citizens to fight against their practices? I don't agree, sorry. Those brave Americans had every right in the world to fight against discrimination, and I'm glad they succeeded.</p>
<p>Democracy is letting the people decide on what they want, regardless of your tastes. If voters in California wanted to submit a bill that would reinstate positive discrimination, I'd let them do it and have the state vote on it. You, however, would be fine with that but would ardently oppose the efforts of people in another state to submit a bill that would end positive discrimination.</p>
<p>Very democratic.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you're ignoring posts #126 and second half of #127</p>
<p>and regarding diversity, what has made America more diverse than Japan or China? The unprecedented blend of cultures, ethnicities, and religions. And as society becomes more integrated and less stratified America continues to become more diverse.</p>
<p>"Democracy is letting the people decide on what they want, regardless of your tastes."</p>
<p>-Well, not really. Democracy is just a system that distributes power, in some manner, among those who are governed. It is only a government "of the people" to the extent that the people don't instate laws that trample on human dignity. Democracy isn't just "letting the people decide on what they want", especially not democracy in America - nor should it be. This sort of thinking is used to justify things like slavery and bigotry - things that are just plain wrong. Majorities are tyrannical and can not and should not be allowed to take away the rights of the minority based solely on popular opinion. The founders of the United States knew this - it's why we have a Supreme Court in the first place. </p>
<p>So, Fabrizio, I take it you support gay marriage? I mean, I'd say that:</p>
<p>The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another sexual orientation......</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>OK, so its [sic] about the school and what they need.</p>
<p>What if a school felt that they needed only white students? Are you saying that I shouldnt complain about their discriminatory policy?</p>
<p>Not too long ago most schools felt they needed only such students. Yet, a brave parent named Oliver Brown didnt agree. He took his daughter to a nearby school and demanded enrollment. According to you, Mr. Brown was wrong to do so because it wasnt about his daughter and what she deserved. It was about the school and what it needed.</p>
<p>Needless to say, I disagree. We are not a collectivist society. We are a capitalist society. Whats more, freedom is a right of individuals, not groups.</p>
<p>There are no white freedoms or Asian freedoms or [insert race here] freedoms. There is only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three are given to all, regardless of race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and regarding diversity, what has made America more diverse than Japan or China? The unprecedented blend of cultures, ethnicities, and religions. And as society becomes more integrated and less stratified America continues to become more diverse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this type of diversity is a good thing that is not reduced by race-blind policy.</p>
<p>kk19131,</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is only a government "of the people" to the extent that the people don't instate laws that trample on human dignity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I gladly accept your clarification.</p>
<p>I do support gay marriage. I do not believe that we should discriminate against people for any reason.</p>
<p>Just for the matter, I'm a pro-AA person, for various reasons, but I always felt a lot of misleading statements in most pro-AA slogans.</p>
<p>For example, Chinese Americans were treated horribly by the Americans, tricked into coming to the US, then denied work, and denied a ship back home. Shunned by society, reduced to starvation, and then to hard menial labor that was little more than slave labor disguised. </p>
<p>Yet we have none of the help that should be offered to those who have incurred such indignities at the "WHITE MAN" (duhn duhn duhn). Instead, rather, we are chalked at as "pasty, math grinds" according to one MIT admissions officer, and held under the assumption that all we could produce were technicians and exotic wives for yuppies. </p>
<p>Is it because we are TOO SMALL of a minority, that Oprah could say Chinese people talk like "ching chong chong" and raise loud laughter, without any recrimations from people like Rev Al Sharpton criticizing the obvious racism. I could easily make a half dozen black, or African imitations, equally inaccurate, equally offensive to an African American as Oprah's comment was to Chinese Americans, and be assured that destruction would reign on me. Is it simply because we are TOO SMALL that no one cares about us, because we are not yet an IMPORTANT minority but merely a MINOR minority, with no important political power yet due to low voter base, that no one feels that this treatment is maybe a little too hypocritical?</p>
<p>I'm not saying give us AA benefits. I'm just asking that when people talk about diversity, they include Asians, because we're a part of this nation too. We're not a bunch of idiot human mass attack soldiers (pure media and hollywood dramatizations, as any study of military history will yeild that mass waves were used only in specific instances for a strategic purpose), or comic kung fu heroes or nerds.</p>
<p>When are we portrayed as "people," not just individually, but as a whole, portrayed as a people. </p>
<p>When has a movie ever shown a chinese guy not in some stereotypical role, but just as a person? (The perfect score does not count.)</p>
<p>PS I know some people will say that Asian Americans here now are mostly of recent immigration from educated families, different backgrounds, but like many people always say when argueing about AA, we are still minority, and live within the larger majority of people, both white, black, and hispanic, who still see Asians as foreign, something of either amusing interest or fear. Also, a lot of the people who take advantage of AA to help propel them into top schools aren't American blacks, but rather Carribean blacks. Similar to us I guess. </p>
<p>Yet you can't notice it that well because only our skin color is obviously "different."</p>
<p>No we're always suspected of being spies for Chinese intelligence (recently a scientist was arrested and now about to be tried for bringing a disk with him that had scientific papers on it. Really bad, except all the papers were written by him, were freely accessible on the internet, not classified at all, and was to be taken to a scientific symposium in Shanghai. Recent news articles also has intelligence sources talking about how China has large amounts of "spies" in America, in the many scientists and students it exports to the US.) Blocks are put on us to prevent high advancement in certain military technology fields, despite high aptitude, citizenship, and clean background searches, simply because of our ethnicity.</p>
<p>But no one seems to care do they? Because once again, we're a minority, but sitll too small of a minority for anyone to really CARE.</p>
<p>Kamikazewave, I completely agree with you. I am a Bangladeshi-American and it is true that Asians are screwed many times over. As for the size issue, I think that is a factor, but that fact does not tell the whole story. Asians have not been as aggressive in demanding their rights as blacks, hispanics, or even native americans. Let's face it, the powers that be in America, will not do much unless they are challenged constantly. When was the last time you saw an Asian rally for civil rights? Also, many Asians are not involved in politics relative to blacks and hispanics. Asians are generally more involved in the private sector.</p>