Setanta wrote:In that case, there must be no private clubs of any kind, because there is a substantial material (as in financial) discrimination in access to power through private and personal connection. There can be no fraternal organizations, because these are also avenues to transact business to the potential detriment of everyone not eligible. Absolutely all public business would have to be subject to the most rigorous "sunshine laws" and meetings such as Scalia on Cheney's fishing expedition would be totally unacceptable.
Much of what affirmative action seeks to remedy is the accumulation of the special advantages conferred by personal connection. It isn't simply that women are raising a stink about private men's clubs because they are "strident," or trying simply to make a point. Such venues assure that business can be transacted by a sequestered, privileged group. School meal programs seek to redress the disadvantages of poor nutrition; ADC, Medicaid and Food Stamps are intended to provide for the same and similar wants. Simply to be born into a white middle class town or neighborhood, and to never question that one will attend university, puts many children at a distinct advantage. "Standard English" will not be a study, but a natural acquisition; "manners" and social decorum are likely to be inculcated in the home; personal contacts of great value lie all around, and participation in many types of organizations common to white middle class life confer advantages as well.
In his speech, Al Sharpton made a point about a poor kid from a broken home in a slum rising so far as to have contended for the nomination for President. This is a signal accomplishment--for someone from his background. With the right background, however, and the right connections, such a result is far less remarkable. Affirmative Action is predicated not simply on how the candidates stack up when they hit the door of the Admissions office, or the Human Resources department--and they about more than rectifying the effects of generations or even centuries of marginalization or oppression. They are also about addressing the inequities inherent in the special access which members of the white middle class enjoy simply by birth.
Talking about a "level playing field" is much like talking about a "free market economy." Neither has ever existed. The playing field of the white middle class may be described as level, but it's up at least one, and in many cases, several flights from the playing fields of the poor.
Set, humans discriminate and life is unequal. This is not only part of life, it is necessary to our species and all species on the planet. There is competition and not everyone has the same headstart.
This does not mean that it is the job of our government to try to equalize advantages and disadvantages in everyone's lives. That assumption is socialist and socialism doesn't work for a number of reasons (which I'll go into if you would like.)
The government has to garuntee that ability to pursue happiness - the ability to be hired, the ability to be educated. They do not garuntee hapiness - that you -will- be hired, that you -will- be educated, that you -will- have money. Our governments strength is not in discriminating, but by being constantly equal and offering fair protection to its citizens. The only way for the government to garuntee equal protection under law is for the same laws to apply to all citizens.
If you change the law for different people, no matter how benevolent the cause may seem, you are changing the underlying principles of equal protection under law.
Inequality will happen. It is a part of life. It is not something the government should try to fix. Leave that to groups of people who do not have sole power over the country, such as churches, organizations, and communities. But never to the government.
