Racial Preferences and the Fainthearted Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of racial preferences in higher education. The last time it did so, in 2016, it upheld them by a 4-3 vote. All three dissenters are still on the court, along with three new conservative colleagues.
In this term's cases, involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Students for Fair Admissions asks the justices to hold that racial preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, when practiced by public institutions, the 14th Amendment. The common expectation is that they will do so and definitively overturn 45 years of precedent permitting colleges and universities to discriminate in the interest of achieving "the educational benefits of a diverse student body."
But that isn’t a sure thing. During oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the university’s lawyer, Seth Waxman, urged the justices to avoid such a ruling. “If you think . . . that the district court and the court of appeals didn’t properly apply the kind of strict-scrutiny and narrow-tailoring analysis that it should have,” Mr. Waxman told the justices, they should send the case back to the lower courts rather than “dispense with decades of constitutional precedent.” Adam Liptak of the New York Times later speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts “might be pursuing a characteristically incremental path,” as he attempted with abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization .
The court has tried that fainthearted approach repeatedly with racial preferences in higher ed, and the results have always proved unsatisfactory. The justices’ mistake has injured countless Americans by permitting institutions to divide us by race and creating a well-funded, deeply entrenched racial spoils system that degrades us all. Unless the court issues a bright-line decision prohibiting the use of race in admissions, schools will continue to disregard judicial limitations and engage in brazen racial discrimination.
The first decision addressing the question, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), famously yielded a split decision. A five-justice majority struck down the university’s affirmative-action practices as unlawful under Title VI because they involved racial quotas, while a different five-justice majority held that race could be used as a “nonpredominant” factor in admissions, solely in the interests of diversity. Only Justice Lewis Powell endorsed both conclusions, and his solo opinion effectively decided the matter.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor poses for an official portrait. PHOTO: CORBIS VIA GETTY IMAGES
It became formal Supreme Court precedent in 2003, when the court issued another split decision in a pair of cases involving the University of Michigan. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the court voted 6-3 to strike down Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative-action program, which used a “point system” to discriminate in favor of blacks and Hispanics.
But in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 5-4 majority upheld the Michigan law school’s admission policies, which purported to use race merely as a “plus factor” as part of “a highly individualized, holistic review” that gave “serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.”
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer joined both majorities. Justice O’Connor wrote the court’s opinion in Grutter, which asserted in a footnote that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time” and that “the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”
In a pointed dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed that diversity was a “compelling interest” but argued that the law school illegally used race as “an automatic factor in most instances . . . to achieve numerical goals indistinguishable from quotas.” He accused the majority of abdicating its “constitutional duty” to apply “strict scrutiny” when evaluating racial distinctions.
In Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), known as Fisher I, Justice Kennedy appeared to make good on that criticism. In an opinion for a 7-1 majority, he wrote that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “did not apply the correct standard of strict scrutiny” and sent the case back for reconsideration—as Mr. Waxman urged the current court to do in the Harvard case.
The Fifth Circuit again upheld Texas’ use of preferences, and the case returned to the high court in 2015. By the time the justices decided Fisher II (2016), Justice Antonin Scalia had died. (Justice Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean and U.S. solicitor general, recused herself from both Fisher cases.) Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-3 majority that Texas’ preferences were constitutional, holding that judges owe “considerable deference . . . to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. PHOTO: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
All these distinctions ignore the clear text of the law. The 14th Amendment prohibits state institutions such as UNC from denying to any person “the equal protection of the laws.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits entities receiving federal funds, including almost all colleges and universities, from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.”
These laws apply to every race and don’t have carve-outs. They don’t say “discrimination to promote ‘diversity’ is OK,” or “discrimination against whites and Asians is OK.” In Rice v. Cayetano (2000), the court explained that “one of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.”
Moreover, what the court insisted was an exception has become the rule. Bakke, Gratz, Grutter and Fisher II all purported to set firm limits on the use of racial preferences—they were to be used only as a “nondeterminative” factor in a “holistic” process to promote “diversity.” But colleges have taken these rulings as carte blanche to discriminate pervasively.
The record in the Harvard case proves it. “Harvard monitors the evolving composition of the class by race at every stage of the process,” Eric Dreiband, then assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, told the First Circuit in 2020. “The application summary sheets used by admissions officers use race. First readers use race, second readers use race, subcommittees use race, the Harvard admissions committee uses race. . . . The overall rating Harvard assigns to each applicant uses race.” The objective—and the effect—is to produce “a class that year over year is racially balanced within a very narrow range.” Harvard’s own expert admitted that race is the determining factor for hundreds of applicants each year.
I helped run the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Attorney General William Barr. Our two-year investigation into complaints of discrimination against Asian-Americans led us to sue Yale for illegal discrimination in undergraduate admissions. We found that race was the determinative factor for a majority of admitted black and Hispanic applicants and for many rejected Asian and white applicants.
Among other examinations, we performed statistical regression analyses, which demonstrated that race was determinative even after accounting for myriad other factors (such as socioeconomic background, first generation to college, legacy, geography, percentage of high-school students receiving subsidized meals, extracurricular activities and sports). Black applicants were up to eight times as likely to be admitted as comparable Asians and whites. Like Harvard, Yale engaged in blatant racial balancing by keeping the percentages of admitted blacks and Asians within a narrow range, and it favored and disfavored applicants based on race at every step of its multistep admissions process.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts poses for a portrait in Washington. PHOTO: SHAWN THEW/SHUTTERSTOCK
Colleges flout the high court’s limits on the use of race because in truth they seek racially balanced student bodies, not merely diversity. And their treatment of students on campus belies claims of diversity. Many schools have separate race-based freshman orientations, separate living spaces, separate majors, separate clubs, separate fraternities and sororities, even separate graduation ceremonies. How are students supposed to benefit from diversity if they are encouraged to segregate themselves?
This misuse of race is analogous to the situation the high court faced in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Proponents of segregation argued that black and white schools were “separate but equal.” In reality, they were grossly unequal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a supporter of racial preferences, noted deception at the heart of the court’s university precedents in her Gratz dissent: “If honesty is the best policy, surely Michigan’s accurately described, fully disclosed college affirmative-action program is preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises.”
Tragically, such games mask society’s failure to prepare black and Hispanic students better for college. They lead to mismatching of schools and minority students, which reduces the number of blacks and Hispanics who graduate and go on to professions such as medicine, science and engineering.
Should the Supreme Court hold that race discrimination is flatly unlawful, we can expect universities to resist, as many segregated communities did in the 1950s and ’60s after Brown. It will be incumbent on the Justice Department, state attorneys general, lawmakers and private plaintiffs to root out misconduct through diligent oversight and litigation.
Yet the justices shouldn’t fear a public backlash. Polls show that Americans of all races overwhelmingly oppose consideration of race in college admissions. In 2020 more than 57% of California voters defeated a statewide referendum to end a formal ban on the use of race in college admissions and other state programs.
Chief Justice Roberts got it right when he observed in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007): “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” For 45 years, the Supreme Court has tried to have it both ways. The result has been a divided country and policies that harm tens of thousands of college students of all races. It is past time for the justices to follow the law and recognize that it mandates equal treatment regardless of race.
Mr. Daukas served as principal deputy and acting U.S. assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, 2020-21.
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
This is an important issue for American society. Are we a nation that believes in equality as outlined in the Constitution? Or are we a nation to be bullied by the left and are we willing to punish innocent people because of the way they were born so as to bring "social justice?"
It may be the Court's most important decision.
How is the nation being bullied by the 'left'?
What do you mean 'punish innocent people because of the way they were born'?
Isn't that the question African Americans have been asking for so long now?
Who are you claiming are the victims here V?
No worries, I don't expect an answer.
Racial discrimination by the government is not only blatantly unconstitutional, it’s a potentially fatal poison.
End it now.
There is no doubt that affirmative action was a necessary policy at a time when blacks, and other minorities were excluded from admission to certain colleges and occupations and promotions. Is it still necessary to the same degree? That is for experts to decide and debate, not people on an internet forum who dont have the expertise.
No John, the Constitution is quite clear on discrimination based on race. It will be up to this Court to show some spine and live up to it.
The Supreme Court said affirmative action is constitutional, and so it is.
The constitution makes nothing "quite clear", it all gets interpreted by the present court.
Vic, what did/does America owe the people who suffered from slavery and then jim crow open discrimination for hundreds of years, a hearty handshake and a pat on the back?
Blacks were kept out of certain colleges and professions for many many decades until affirmative action opened the door. Would you prefer that blacks never got access to those colleges and jobs?
Simply outlawing racial discrimination does that. Affirmative action is unnecessary to provide access.
Black people have suffered because of the effects and after effects of slavery. No intelligent person would say otherwise. Until affirmative action blacks were KEPT OUT OF colleges and certain jobs and professions. Do you not call that "suffering"?
The same applies to the Native Americans.
affirmative action mandated admission and jobs. It made sure that the prejudiced people that controlled these jobs and institutions did the right thing.
Simply making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race accomplishes this. Affirmative action simply allows the government and businesses to discriminate on the basis of race and create new race based winners and losers. .
How are black adults born in 2000 suffering because of slavery? For how many generations is this suffering inherited from? At what point, do you think, are black people responsible for their own outcomes? 7 generations? 8?
Affirmative action is still necessary because liberal democrats think people of color are inferior and can’t compete without their help.
It's not because of slavery they may be suffering, it is because of bigotry in large part.
“…because liberal democrats think people of color are inferior…”
That is a ridiculous and punitive premise.
If one believes we are all equal, let us acknowledge our differences in working together to remedy the past transgressions and ensure babies born today grow up in a society of acceptance…regardless of political posturing.
It’s 100% accurate! We constantly hear how ID’s are racist. Why can whites get ID but people of color can’t?
why do we have different standards for minorities but punish Asians based on skin color for college admissions?
“…why do we have different standards for minorities…”
exactly
Then you agree that affirmative action is not necessary, and any time a politician appoints anybody while mentioning skin color or gender they are nothing more than a racist/mysoginist perpetuating stereotypes.
“Then you agree that affirmative action is not necessary…”
Not for a minute.
If we cannot accept that standards are not applied across the board, we’ll never accept the inherent discrepancies. One word…legacy.
Affirmative Action may be required to continue (whether it does or not with this new attempt to have a conservative MAJORITY on the SCOTUS exercise partisan power for its own sake (right or wrong be damned) because of the same 'spirit' dwells in the hearts and minds of people who see Majority rule as power over and beyond Rule of Law.
Some conservatives are always interjecting/interfering in the forward 'wheel/cog' of efforts to make a better society through fairness, equality, equity - all words some conservatives try to wield for the present MAJORITY which they proclaim to be themselves!
We are not ignorant of such 'devices,' tactics, and strategies. Some conservatives 'preach' and lecture about equality and fairness, while maintaining that equity is not to be desired and it is they who hold the 'bar' that everyone ought to follow.
The 'devil' is a lie. And some conservatives you ought to be and you will be rebuked!
If I were a minority, I would be very embarrassed knowing I got into a college or got a job solely based on my skin color.
There are standards to be met to be accepted almost anywhere. When you dumb down those requirements, you are enabling some minorities to not be the best they can be, knowing their skin color will get them where they want to go.
Asians are not complaining about black admissions, but white conservatives are: Why? When did some white conservatives become supporters of Asian causes in the United States? It is a ploy to divide minorities to go catching after petty fights among themselves while some conservatives continue to try to run the whole of the country for/through/in conservative values (whatsoever that is in 2022-3)!
Yes, we are aware that some conservatives arguments/reasoning has shifted from Jim Crow 2.0 to MAGA Conservatism 2.0. That is, some conservatives are only interested in pursuing interests which are cloaked (hidden) in a MAGA conservative worldview. Any other worldview will be/is attacked, diminished, harangued, contested, demonized, projected against, and denied!
They are in my county and last May a federal judge has again ruled against Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology that he found guilty of discriminating against Asian American students when it overhauled its admissions policies at the highly selective high school.
"Would you prefer that blacks never got access to those colleges and jobs"?
But they did and they have, for some years now. Are you saying they are still being discriminated against by systemic racism at the institutional level?
Minorities seem to be well represented at major educational institutions anymore, quite often to the detriment of other qualified applicants.
The percentage of Asian-Americans at Harvard peaked at over 20% in 1993, then immediately declined and have remained between 15-17% since despite the fact that Asian-American population has more than doubled since 1993. The relative enrollment of A-A at Harvard has dropped by over half during the last twenty years. Same at other Ivy League universities.,
Maybe Asian-Americans are the new Jews in America, damned for their success.
But it's not happening now, nor has it for some time.
I have a dream that America's little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their intellect and character.
White people are so abused in this society.
You don't need to tell me, I can think of at least two occasions in my life where. . . actually three where police of a different racial group could have shot me dead-just on 'general principles of policing at the time, it turns out. I am alive today, because they did not exercise the authority vested in them to do with me permissively. I have no choice but to be grateful to those men.
Discriminating? That is a term you are invoking. I do find it interesting that when a 'sub' class is being lifted up for the sake of equity; some conservatives see it as an opportunity to cry foul (and champion) and protest that achieving equity is discrimination and a negative, when the same conservatives reserve for themselves in the MAJORITY the right/privilege to hold liberals in contempt for 99.99 percent of every idea towards freedom and liberty for 'others.'
It strikes me that some conservatives could be more understanding in 2023 than to drag the same old tired talking points into the new year in a vain attempt to sell to people of color that we all be equal, while conservatives insistently try to suppress in people of color what they can not get rid of altogether! That is, some conservatives strive to make people of color in your own image/s, plural. And it ain't working, because some conservatives are wrong-headed, headed back to tribalism, and shall I say it: MEAN, self-afflicted with their own interests, people.
Lastly, I am all for some conservatives doing what they wish for themselves in the privacy of their churches, schools, and arenas of influence. The issue is problematic when some conservatives try to tell others to abide by their dictates across the board/spheres of this nation/world.
Or maybe you did not comply to their demands and showed troubling behavior?
It strikes me that some liberals of color see themselves superior to other people of color, like Blacks and Hispanics on the Chicago and LA City Council or those want more slots at prestige schools at the expense of Asian-Americans. And of course, there is Hymie-town.
The fact that you try to ignore the true of some conservatives intentions for liberals behind a mountain of red-herring rhetoric, now that speaks VOLUMES. Some conservatives let us 'peek' their truth face on toward Asians when they stood toe-to-toe with MAGAns and called Asians "China virus" and lagged behind in offering compassion and support for them when some conservatives or even liberal 'fools' were pushing them down stairs, off subway car platforms, knocked Asians out 'cold,' and kicked them black and blue. Oh yes, Asians were killed.
Where was the some conservative 'unction' for compassion and understanding for Asians then? It strikes me it only comes out when it can be twisted into a ploy to get a white conservative majority "in" with a pretext for a new majority of white conservative SCOTUS (plus a black conservative: Thomas) to scatter the hopes and dreams of minorities just to keep some conservatives in power. . . a little while longer. Because it seem inevitable that some conservatives' grip on this country's power is slipping.
Do you have any per capita stats on the perps?
Why would you (dare) insinuate my behavior was bad in the past? What gives you the 'right'? The police had the authority, the rules structure, the training and the weapons. . . and somehow you default to some unknown that I did not do something.
Okay: tell me why do you this: What were the details of the three occasions you trust the police were in the right and I in the wrong. You can't. Thus, it shows you up for just wanting to issue a personal attack.
Futhermore, had I shown 'bad' non-compliant and insufficient enough behavior it is clear to me that I would have been 'put down,' arrested, and/or shot to death. As you can tell I am not dead and neither was I arrested in those situations.
So now what, bugsy and that voter who (dared) agree with you? Don't let partisan hatred of liberals consume you. And no, I don't hate some conservatives. I do insist that some conservatives do better by everybody!
I did not insinuate anything. I simply asked a question. Your heated defense shows that maybe I was pretty close to the truth.
"Don't let partisan hatred of liberals consume you"
Says the guy that blames conservatives for everything that has gone wrong in their life.
I have explained to you before: You don't tell me what to comment on! My examples, my sharing, my understanding of how to reply is mine. That said, you opened the door for my reflection on my personal conviction/experiences with this:
I agreed with you directly, that discrimination can get people killed, by drawing on my past where the opportunity was known to be there, though (thankfully) it was not taken. You can try to discount it or ignore personal experience all you wish, but its bull on your part-because you can't change my past or deny it as mine.
That's mighty nice of you, CB.
That's easy for you to write, I suppose. Take off the 'cloak' and admit MAGA only gives a damn about conservatism and see this ploy as a means to an end. MAGA conservatives are always messing around with liberals and will use anybody they can to try to screw liberals. BTW, Asians as a people don't need fake "friends" so-called help. Because as a people they know a fraud when they see. . .them.
Ditto. Howdy/Bye.
You didn't state if you hate liberals or not? Well, here is space and opportunity. . . .
"Heated defense" - bugsy this projection is. . .premature. You should have saved it for a more substantive occasion. Some conservatives are a problem fighting to takeover and end a liberal worldview ; I am sad that you don't own your partisan hatred of liberals who do not wish to live a conservative life simply because you chose it for yourselves.
I will not regurgitate any other discussion on this tread. I reasoned to make the statement in passing to Texan1211 in context of his comment, not to solicit any full-blown discussion about "perps" or even "China" per se.
Conservatives are fighting to end the liberal worldview because that view is toxic and a danger to the stability of this country. I have no hatred for liberals, just sympathy for their incompetence of how they want to destroy this country.
That is rhetoric. In any case, liberals are fighting for the rights and privileges of their numbers to exist as they are; doing no harm to some conservatives. Some conservatives are not fighting to secure rights and privileges for themselves! Some conservatives are striving to keep liberals undermined, secondary, and 'diminished' to state the opposite would be a lie! It is evidenced by an observance that 99.99 percent of stances/positions/policies liberals seek after-some conservatives are in stark opposition too. Of course, in the case of liberals towards conservatives- the reverse is true by default!
Affirmative Action seeks equity and the placement of undermined, 'defeated' people who are trapped under the 'hand' of an oppressive conservative majority which seeks to stay in power exercising 'full' control over minority lives. Some conservatives have their motives for wanting such control. So do we for wanting to stop living in the 'shadow' of conservatism! When the time comes that equity and equality in education is achieved, it is hoped that we as a country are enlightened enough to agree and end Affirmative Action and allow the 'state' for it to fall!
I fear what is about to happen is a mere power-play by conservatives; a 'numbers' game. That is sad, because our rights and liberties should be about more than this; but some conservatives are clear: it is not more than this.
I can't think of anyone that I hate.
Good deal CB, no one wants you to vomit on this or any other thread.
I don't pay as much attention to them than you apparently do,
They are fortunate to have you as their spokesman.
Why has your party of choice dedicated itself to contesting 99.99 percent of liberal policies? Why end affirmative action if it is working to live the most 'set against' racial group in the history of this country up? Why do some conservatives who are highly educated pretend to not understand what unfair treatment of minorities is when it is compared to fair treatment for the majority?
The opposing of making solutions 'right' for all instead of for some is a hatred all of its own. Our country is plagued by hatred for some of its 'components'. And it is time to call it out for its naked aggression.
I hope you will stop doing "ditto" on this and every other thread! Because spouting rhetoric and insults all day must get tiresome and ultimately nothing and nobody appreciates its 'bearer' for a 'empty' delivery.
Many school districts and colleges have dumbed down their requirements of minorities to either get credit for graduating or getting into a high end college.
Do you agree that it is OK to graduate from high school or be accepted into a high end college simply because of your skin color?
“If I were a minority…”
…perhaps you would have a better perspective.
Easy to pontificate coming from a place with no knowledge of the inherent disadvantages…educational, judicial, economic, and thus systemic.
Easy to place blame on the individual.
Easy to cite history, but only in a context that suits your narrative.
Easy to impugn those who only want the same opportunities you enjoy.
Enjoy your day, bugs…in appreciation of the ease that is not offered to too many of your fellow citizens, your fellow human beings.
What did Asian-Americans do against you?
Unlike you, I don't speak for others.
You can call me whatever you wish, I could care less. Victim/symptom/dictum/wisdom/krypton/cistern. . . who gives a flying whatever about empty repetition. If you are going to repeat yourself at least put 'heart' into it, I say. Because now, I will tell you "victim" shaming me ain't even registering a zero on the scale. It's anemic at best.
But, I'm okay if you take that as a 'reason' to think you are making 'headway' on your digging for a rhetorical flourish!
Ditto?
I don't 'spout' and didn't mean to insult you,
While you turn everything, repeat everything, into stupefyingly defending your personal agenda, with nary an original thought.
“I don't suspect you'll be changing any time soon.” Quote, unquote…
Nary an original thought. Quote unquote.
More empty rhetoric. But wait. . . you've got more of it to share, eh? Asian-Americans are my neighbors and we talk and interact together. They tell me, they don't like some conservatives PLOY to speak for them. They speak for themselves and through other minority organizations dedicated to their causes.
So that's what I came here to share with you; Asian-Americans don't have some conservatives to speak for them (either) and they know it is just a manipulation ploy for what seems to be a 'willing' court of conservative justices who just might assent to this pretext to prematurely end a program that is working for the most abused and scattered people-group in the history of this nation!
Let me ask: Do conservatives want Affirmative Action to "be best" under strict scrutiny for Asian-Americans/Blacks/Others or just struck down by the high court/dissolve into nothingness? Go!
What is empty about what I wrote?
OK, I don't know what PLOY is but I don't speak for them, do you?
I can only speak for myself and I don't know what you mean by "be best".
One has to wonder why you bother to engage in discussions when you consistently bring little to anything substantial to it! Empty rhetoric and emptier questions do not lend themselves to a furtherance of discussion or debate.
So why do you reply?
I desperately strive to keep hope alive with you on better/best discussions. I try to "Welcome" you into my sincere thoughts and all it seems to me what you do is bat 'hit back over the 'net' knowing it will not be enough to warrant deeper, shared, understanding. There is something truly wrong here, if all we do is come here to waste time on anemic talking points and obfuscation. Though for the obfuscator, it serves a purpose-I guess.
Hope isn't a method for success.
I'm sorry that I've failed to help you with a deeper shared understanding.,
You don't understand what I write?
Of course, I understand what you write, which is why I can classify it. I do grow tired of the conservative 'brain' versus the liberal "brain" trekking that takes over. We can do better! Because there is good and bad ideas on both/all sides of this. Let's work towards 'the middle' where something of a bridge between us can be constructed.
I think of myself as a middle of the roader, what did you read as conservative?
I read you are not a liberal. And it is clear you don't moderate, compromise, or straddle the fence on much if anything on NT. By process of elimination you are a conservative and at best not an extremist Republican. Are you an extremist? You don't have to answer that, it's optional. We are limited in how far we can go in seeking what others do not wish to share.
Yes, I told you that I think of myself as a middle of the roader.
I don’t know what you mean, please provide some examples where you moderated, compromised or straddled the fence on NT.
Your process is simplistic.
No, are you?
You can tell yourself you are moderate or "middle of the road(er)" and I will have no choice but to wait for some sign that you can swing both ways—politically, because nuh-huh ain't getting you there, in my opinion.
I can compromise with conservatives, they don't want to compromise with me! They prefer "ownership" of this lib!
I didn't tell myself anything, I told you.
Wait as long as you like.
I see as always, no direct answer or examples.
Maybe they do, but not me, I have enough problems already.
More meaningless retorts. I will like to get back to the subject now, can I enlist your assistance?
I can't help you discuss the subject, you are on your own. Let's see what you've got.
So toxic is this 'meaninglessness' - it can't even find its way back into discussion without wandering off track. Minorities are benefiting from the 'grace' of the U.S. society to permit/allow them space to catch up with the rest of society, due to several hundred years of set-backs, thefts of wealth, and even not being allowed to advance as people civilly. Much discussion about minorities and what to do with them (besides educate them and let them become self-reliant and compete for 'WHITE MAN'S jobs and peerage) has happened in print press and books about this nation's record of activities with a singular motivation to keep minorities scraping to 'get by' in our nation(al)/culture.
Hell, we can see it on full display even now. Some conservatives won't lift a finger or scream out an assent to helping dreamers, who have no other home but 'us,' becoming acceptable and proper citizens. They are just 'rotting' on the U.S. vine through lack of engagement and republican dismissal.
That is a contradiction.
Huh?
So many words with so little meaning.
"It is treacherous to predict how the Justices will rule based on oral argument," Tobias said. "However, the jurisprudence, recent opinions, and the general skepticism about diversity expressed in the Monday argument of the 6-3 conservative majority suggest that the Court may significantly modify the 1978 precedent articulated in Baake and essentially reaffirmed by the 2003 opinion in the Grutter case." ""The use of racial preferences in education has been an unsuccessful experiment for 44 years," Severino said. "The Court’s argument [Monday] showed that it is high time to return to the constitutional norm of color blindness."
The constitution makes nothing "quite clear
Bakke v Regents of the University of California
Vic, what did/does America owe the people who suffered from slavery and then jim crow open discrimination for hundreds of years, a hearty handshake and a pat on the back?
The American people of today don't owe today's black members of our society a damn thing.
Blacks were kept out of certain colleges and professions for many many decades until affirmative action opened the door. Would you prefer that blacks never got access to those colleges and jobs?
We offer a merit based system which puishes discrimination, except in the case of universities helping blacks. (And Joe Biden appointments)
I think you've done it again...That has to be the sound-bite of the week!
That's 'rich' coming from you who for all intent and purposes is a discussion minimalist! I have a Soundbite of the Week too:
(Some) Conservatives used to be famous for conscientious thinking: What happened to you all?
You didn't attempt to answer it. Typical republican inability to make substantial discussion. Some conservatives sold out and tossed conscientious republicans out of the party. Now it is outright power-grabbing by any means necessary.
I'm not a repub, CB. Why did you call your question a sound bite?
I don't know what you are politically. It's just a game you play around here. Don't worry about the question . . you didn't bother to answer it.
I was writing about Asian-Americans, who are you reading?
Of course, some conservatives want to be able to screw minorities (of all classes and races in this country) out of getting 'ahead,' because the conservative "majority" have resented Affirmative Action which lifts groups of people who have been STRIVING with conservatives from 'day one" of the law out of poverty and creates better educated citizens. Conservatives don't like this. Minorities should content to be 'under-class,' under-served, under appreciated, financially downtrodden, and ghetto-ized, because the conservative thinking goes, minorities don't deserve to be here anyway. And liberals don't deserve to be respected either.
As I have stated in the past, it is sad that a set or recent 'sub'-set of this nation's citizenry has invested all its energy in political warfare against their fellow citizens. As it is right down, we're all losers because republicans won't stop trying to set-back and ruin nearly half of the country with their petty schemes and deceits.
When I look at the course of my time on earth and all those who have screwed up this life for me and mine; I am really fighting hard outright hating MAGA-thinking republicans. . . .
How much more of this political meddling can a people be prepared to accept? It is drip, drip, drip, and no relief from the constant screwing by narrow-minded conservatives with the rules affecting minorities and liberals.
This is the same tired old argument about abortion, about welfare, about problems and issues of minorities being here that some conservatives have been churning up for each new program that is intended and designed to help lift up people of color in a society with a large majority which does not want them here: Exception: As servants to the conservative 'vision.'
That's the way conservatives see it? What a crock of $hit! ONLY a bunch of louses could dedicate their time and resources to trying to keep a people born into this society from rising. Only a bunch of louses. How long have conservatives been complaining about minorities of all stripes getting educated by the society they dwell in and hope to make better and do make better when educated?
It just boggles the mind that there are louses that keep stirring around in this. Will it ever end?! Another 'generation' lost to fighting with some of my fellow 'Americans' over the ability to advance and be a part of civil society acceptable under fair and equitable terms.
Why did your state pass Proposition 209 requiring the state not "discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting"? Too many conservative louses in California?
Short answer: Yes. No one has ever suggested conservatives can't win political outcomes for their party.
It passed 55%-45%, 55% 0f the voters in CA aren't Repub, it must have had Dem and Independent support as well.
Analyses
Los Angeles Times exit poll
On November 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times conducted an exit poll of 2,473 voters who cast ballots in the general election at 40 polling places. The margin of error was 3 percent (but higher for some subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209: [4]
Unlike you I post supporting links to back up discussion (as we have been told to do time after time.) But, of course, conservatives do whatever suits their purposes.
Also, the link supplies who was sponsoring Proposition 209,
As I stated conservatives do win political outcomes too! This proposition was pitched by the usual meddlers in anything decent for minorities by REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVE who used dumb ass Ward Connerly, as a poster boy minority to put it over on the people. I can see his face now and remember his 'argument' from an/the interviews. Oh the details of how to win a proposition: right and wrong be damned! Winning is the only thing.
PROPOSITION 209 (1997) for:
THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
A generation ago, we did it right. We passed civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination. But special interests hijacked the civil rights movement. Instead of equality, governments imposed quotas, preferences, and set-asides.
Proposition 209 is called the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
"REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" BASED ON RACE OR GENDER IS PLAIN WRONG!
And two wrongs don't make a right! Today, students are being rejected from public universities because of their RACE. Job applicants are turned away because their RACE does not meet some "goal" or "timetable." Contracts are awarded to high bidders because they are of the preferred RACE.
That's just plain wrong and unjust. Government should not discriminate. It must not give a job, a university admission, or a contract based on race or sex. Government must judge all people equally, without discrimination!
And, remember, Proposition 209 keeps in place all federal and state protections against discrimination!
BRING US TOGETHER!
Government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates. Proposition 209 will stop the terrible programs which are dividing our people and tearing us apart. People naturally feel resentment when the less qualified are preferred. We are all Americans. It's time to bring us together under a single standard of equal treatment under the law.
STOP THE GIVEAWAYS!
Discrimination is costly in other ways. Government agencies throughout California spend millions of your tax dollars for costly bureaucracies to administer racial and gender discrimination that masquerade as "affirmative action." They waste much more of your money awarding high-bid contracts and sweetheart deals based not on the low bid, but on unfair set-asides and preferences. This money could be used for police and fire protection, better education and other programs--for everyone.
THE BETTER CHOICE: HELP ONLY THOSE WHO NEED HELP!
We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged. And not every "minority" is disadvantaged. Real "affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. That's why Proposition 209 prohibits discrimination and preferences and allows any program that does not discriminate, or prefer, because of race or sex, to continue.
The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis.
Let's not perpetuate the myth that "minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against--or for--any individual.
Vote for FAIRNESS . . . not favoritism!
Reject preferences by voting YES on Proposition 209. [6]
Proposition 209 (1997) Against
California law currently allows tutoring, mentoring, outreach, recruitment, and counseling to help ensure equal opportunity for women and minorities. Proposition 209 will eliminate affirmative action programs like these that help achieve equal opportunity for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. Instead of reforming affirmative action to make it fair for everyone, Proposition 209 makes the current problems worse.
The initiative's language is so broad and misleading that it eliminates equal opportunity programs including:
The independent, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst gave the following report on the effects of Proposition 209:
"[T]he measure would eliminate a variety of public school (kindergarten through grade 12) and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts, where these programs are targeted based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin." [ Opinion Letter to the Attorney General , 10/15/95].
Currently, California women have one of the strongest state constitutional protections against sex discrimination in the country. Now it is difficult for state and local government to discriminate against women in public employment, education, and the awarding of state contracts because of their gender. Proposition 209's loophole will undo this vital state constitutional protection.
It is time to put an end to politicians trying to divide our communities for their own political gain. "The initiative is a misguided effort that takes California down the road of division. Whether intentional or not, it pits communities against communities and individuals against each other."
-- Reverend Kathy Cooper-Ledesma, President, California Council of Churches.
"Efforts such as the California Civil Rights Initiative which poses as an equal opportunities initiative, but which puts at risk every outreach program, sets back the gains made by women and puts the brakes on expanding opportunities for people in need."
-- Retired General Colin Powell, 5/25/96.
VOTE NO" ON PROPOSITION 209--
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MATTERS [6]
Unlike me? I post some links and rarely see you doing the same. But thanks, it shows Dem and Independent support.
I assume that is your opinion as you didn't site a source for dumb ass.
And so, the 'pitch' from conservatives won out. Why? Because we all want to IMAGINE we can be a just society. The problem/dilemma is we have UNJUST people who keep lying, cheating, and robbing the good out of the system in key places where justice should flourish and run free. But, I am convinced conservatives know this already.
Of course, you would assume and gather a one-sided view. What was that 5.1.72 'tale' about being "middle of the road(er)"again? Yeah, you just got caught 'stuffing' your conservative bag again.
You rarely see me posting links, but interestingly you are the one caught in the act. Go figure. More to the point: Caught in the act: you still did not support your backup link. Again, just stunning the attempts at projection.
One sided view? Like Ward Connelly is a dumb ass?
Backup link?
Projection?
Conversing with you is frequently confusing.