au1929 wrote:That won't fly. It is not a conservative issue. It is one of fairness and common sense. And supported by people of all political persuasions. After 50 years it is time for the crutch to be removed. Equal opportunity should mean equal opportunity for all.
Every time I see an argument like this one I'm reminded of Justice Bradley's statement in the Civil Rights Cases:
When a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected.
Bradley apparently thought that the moment had arrived for blacks to cease being the "special favorites of the laws" -- in other words, blacks had benefitted from "special rights" for too long. The playing field had been levelled; it was time for the laws to stop treating them so well.
That was in 1883.
So, 124 years of additional special treatment. I think they owe some kind of reparation.
cjhsa wrote:So, 124 years of additional special treatment. I think they owe some kind of reparation.
What's that buzzing sound?
joefromchicago wrote:au1929 wrote:That won't fly. It is not a conservative issue. It is one of fairness and common sense. And supported by people of all political persuasions. After 50 years it is time for the crutch to be removed. Equal opportunity should mean equal opportunity for all.
Every time I see an argument like this one I'm reminded of Justice Bradley's statement in the Civil Rights Cases:
When a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected.
Bradley apparently thought that the moment had arrived for blacks to cease being the "special favorites of the laws" -- in other words, blacks had benefitted from "special rights" for too long. The playing field had been levelled; it was time for the laws to stop treating them so well.
That was in 1883.
People like you will be quoting that for another 200 years. When is enough enough? The field has been leveled and the time has come for people to stand on their own and compete on an equal basis.
I don't hear anything. But I think you may be smoking something.
au1929 wrote:People like you will be quoting that for another 200 years. When is enough enough?
When people like you stop complaining about the government denying you the right to discriminate against minorities.
joefromchicago wrote:au1929 wrote:People like you will be quoting that for another 200 years. When is enough enough?
When people like you stop complaining about the government denying you the right to discriminate against minorities.
I don't think the government protects the white minority of California at all. Perhaps you should move there.
joefromchicago wrote:au1929 wrote:People like you will be quoting that for another 200 years. When is enough enough?
When people like you stop complaining about the government denying you the right to discriminate against minorities.
So because there isn't special treatment means discrimination will take place? Are you sure your not Jesse "the con man" Jackson? Always looking for racism even when there isn't any present. People like you should be working your self out of a job like in construction.
joefromchicago wrote:au1929 wrote:People like you will be quoting that for another 200 years. When is enough enough?
When people like you stop complaining about the government denying you the right to discriminate against minorities.
I begin to wonder who you think the minority is. What i see is the legislation intending to stop the discrimination against the majority.
Baldimo wrote:So because there isn't special treatment means discrimination will take place?
What do you mean by "special treatment?"
Baldimo wrote:People like you should be working your self out of a job like in construction.
And take an opportunity away from you? I wouldn't dream of it.
au1929 wrote:I begin to wonder who you think the minority is. What i see is the legislation intending to stop the discrimination against the majority.
Racial and sexual protections are not denied to white men. They are just as much protected under the civil rights laws as are blacks and women.
joefromchicago wrote:au1929 wrote:I begin to wonder who you think the minority is. What i see is the legislation intending to stop the discrimination against the majority.
Racial and sexual protections are not denied to white men. They are just as much protected under the civil rights laws as are blacks and women.
Yes except when superceded by preferences given to women and minorities.
au1929 wrote:Yes except when superceded by preferences given to women and minorities.
In the same way that a thousand monkeys, typing on a thousand typewriters, might eventually come up with a Shakespearian sonnet, I suppose if you keep posting on this topic, you
might eventually say something intelligent.
JFC
I doubt you ever will.
Joe, Bill Cosby's daughter comes from fabulous wealth, educational opportunities, home life, etc. Notwithstanding this, by virtue of the pigmentation of her skin, she would be given preference over a white male who is the son of a miner, more talented, etc.
Similarly, a black male who squeaked by in college, concentrating on video games, etc., would get preference over a white male who worked extremely hard in college, had better marks, etc.
How do you defend this?
dys, you are so profound. Why don't you elaborate.
Advocate wrote:Joe, Bill Cosby's daughter comes from fabulous wealth, educational opportunities, home life, etc. Notwithstanding this, by virtue of the pigmentation of her skin, she would be given preference over a white male who is the son of a miner, more talented, etc.
Similarly, a black male who squeaked by in college, concentrating on video games, etc., would get preference over a white male who worked extremely hard in college, had better marks, etc.
How do you defend this?
Quite easily.
Since affirmative action doesn't come into play unless both applicants are equally qualified, giving a preference to one qualified applicant over another qualified applicant presents no problem. After all, the rejected applicant cannot complain that he was passed over unfairly -- both applicants are equally fit to fill the job or position. If race can't be used as a tie-broker, then something else would have to be used, and there's no guarantee that the rejected candidate would win that tie-breaker either.
If the poor white guy and the rich black girl are equally qualified for a position, why should my sympathies lie with the white guy? Because he's poor? That just creates a different type of affirmative action (one that, by the way, more minorities on average would benefit from). Since you think it's important to take into account an applicant's economic background, you evidently have no problem with considering an applicant's personal circumstances in making these kinds of decisions. And I agree. I just don't know why we can't consider race and sex as part of those circumstances.
Advocate wrote:Joe, Bill Cosby's daughter comes from fabulous wealth, educational opportunities, home life, etc. Notwithstanding this, by virtue of the pigmentation of her skin, she would be given preference over a white male who is the son of a miner, more talented, etc.
Similarly, a black male who squeaked by in college, concentrating on video games, etc., would get preference over a white male who worked extremely hard in college, had better marks, etc.
How do you defend this?
My half sister (meaning different father) who is blond haired and green eyed scored on an entrance exam to a nursing school here in CO in the top 2%. She was told that even though she had a great score that she would not be able to start classes because they had to leave slots open for minorties in the class. This isn't a very fair way of doing things in the US. She was crushed and had to wait several years before she was able to get her RN. So much for women getting the same protections as other minorties. If your white forget about equal treatment because of AA.
Baldimo wrote:My half sister (meaning different father) who is blond haired and green eyed scored on an entrance exam to a nursing school here in CO in the top 2%. She was told that even though she had a great score that she would not be able to start classes because they had to leave slots open for minorties in the class. This isn't a very fair way of doing things in the US. She was crushed and had to wait several years before she was able to get her RN. So much for women getting the same protections as other minorties. If your white forget about equal treatment because of AA.
Reserving slots for minority applicants was declared unconstitutional in the
Bakke decision. That was decided nearly thirty years ago. You need to update your anecdotes.
