Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action. - Polidicks

[IMG]http://www.trbimg.com/img-5356849f/turbine/la-pn-supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-actio-001/600[/IMG] [QUOTE] WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of racial affirmative action in its state universities Tuesday, ruling that voters are entitled to decide the issue. The 6-2 decision clears away constitutional challenges to the state bans on affirmative action, which began in California in 1996. Justice [URL="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/anthony-kennedy-PEPLT00008042.topic"]Anthony Kennedy[/URL], speaking for the majority, said the democratic process can decide such issues. “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he said. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.” [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-20140422,0,6472617.story#axzz2zd6n1eXo[/url]

[QUOTE=New York Times]But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the longest and most significant dissent of her career, said the Constitution required special vigilance in light of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and “recent examples of discriminatory changes to state voting laws.” ... Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts’s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race in public school systems, he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Justice Sotomayor recast the line. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” she wrote, “is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”[/QUOTE] oh snap

[QUOTE=]“recent examples of discriminatory changes to state voting laws.” [/QUOTE] Like what? Needing an ID to vote?

Good, affirmative action is just another form of racism

[QUOTE=DuCT;44617851]Like what? Needing an ID to vote?[/QUOTE] In part, yes. Because that has been proven to have a detrimental effect on the poorest voters, who also tend to be minorities. It's more or less outright been said by Southern lawmakers that their ID laws were intended to curb latino voting numbers. And then there was the whole Voting Rights Act decision that de facto legalized discriminatory drawing of voting districts and gerrymandering, which we know is going on in the South. This is a ridiculous decision. [editline]22nd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=viperfan7;44617919]Good, affirmative action is just another form of racism[/QUOTE] This is a stupid outlook. So decades ago in-opportunities were intentionally created, establishing low-income, low-subsidy, discriminatory neighborhoods that were intended as ghettos and continued to brew poverty and lack of opportunity. These places still exist today. There is still discrimination in allocations of education funds, and law enforcement funds. They're not going to the poor areas, which in Michigan either mean it's in the country or the inner city. There is more or less intentional institutional discrimination in this state. There is discrimination against black people. We took away the police force of Flint and removed the elected governments of Detroit, Pontiac, and Benton Harbor- primarily black communities. We've denied Detroit schools, Saginaw schools, and Flint schools millions through shitty policies that deny schools that can't perform to the state's standards with less funding (because that makes sense!). White communities get schools of choice, which gives the children in those communities the ability to go to a different school zone than their residence if they have the means to get there themselves, which is great for all of the white-flighters who live in the rings around Flint and Detroit. There is obviously a disadvantage to black people in Michigan. Being in the political science program of a university in a mixed community west of Detroit, I deal with attorneys and former attorneys who work/ed primarily in Detroit. One of my professors, a black civil rights attorney, gave statistics from past cases. Even well into the 2000s, there was proven racial discrimination in Michigan on the basis of realty and property values, loans, education, and welfare fund allotment. How is it racism? Is it because it advantages minorities? There is no institutional discrimination against whites in Michigan, except for the discrimination against the poor in many communities, which is itself aided by the same affirmative action. The cases that brought this referendum to be dealt with affirmative action with the University of Michigan, which twice went to the SCOTUS over aa. As an applicant to U of M myself, I can assure you that race was just as prominent as income in their application process. Regardless of that, aa simply corrects an institutional disadvantage by preferring the always un-preffered, leveling the playing field. It isn't just against whites, it also affects asian applicants in the same way more often than not. aa provides for a method for the disadvantaged to achieve an education and break a cycle of poverty that exists in many states. Would you rather a black person who achieves through their life through their own merit is denied entry on the basis of their school not having extracurricular activities, available charity work, or advanced placement or standardized testing available because it's underfunded? These are things that many colleges like the U of M require as a resume when applying. Would you see them denied entry because they can not afford it, as they are poor and have little opportunity to not be poor? Would you see them denied because they got a bad education? I think that it's bull that someone can sit around and call the advantaging of the disadvantaged racism. Next thing you know you'll be calling progressive taxation classism- "Taxing my billion dollar annual income more is discrimination against my class! Look here, everyone should be taxed the same amount!" Or maybe it'll be in health- "Why does he get a special parking spot just because he's in a wheelchair? That's just another form of ableism! Wasn't the ramps and low sidewalks enough? Why do I have to be inconvenienced because of something I had nothing to do with!"

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44618406']In part, yes. Because that has been proven to have a detrimental effect on the poorest voters, who also tend to be minorities.... Why do I have to be inconvenienced because of something I had nothing to do with!"[/QUOTE] One of the best rebuttals I've seen in a really long time. That was incredible. I would rate you a winner multiple times if I could.

[QUOTE]"I have a dream that my four 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 character."[/QUOTE] How about we don't look at race and help everybody regardless of their race?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44619017]How about we don't look at race and help everybody regardless of their race?[/QUOTE] MLK wanted a world where race didn't divide us, not a world where race didn't exist. It would be foolish to pretend that we ought not deal with race when we are divided based on race. No point in ignoring race, when race is still a dividing factor in our society. Disregarding identity when identity is a point of divide only furthers the promotion of one and the demotion of the other. The divide is still there.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44619017]How about we don't look at race and help everybody regardless of their race?[/QUOTE] Except that's not how the world works at all. There are differences between races. No, not the racist notion of differences in inherent capability, but differences in status, condition, and opportunity. Shutting your eyes and ignoring these differences simply results in their perpetuation and doesn't provide any solution. It just makes things worse and harder to deal with. This mostly results from the liberal notion of individual citizenship, which is highly appealing in many respects, but it misses a lot and doesn't solve the problem.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44619130]Except that's not how the world works at all. There are differences between races. No, not the racist notion of differences in inherent capability, but differences in status, condition, and opportunity. Shutting your eyes and ignoring these differences simply results in their perpetuation and doesn't provide any solution. It just makes things worse and harder to deal with. This mostly results from the liberal notion of individual citizenship, which is highly appealing in many respects, but it misses a lot and doesn't solve the problem.[/QUOTE] Perpetuating racism in any form is bad. Like seed eater posted, we shouldn't be divided by race.

Affirmative action basically says that X race is shitty and worse than this race and needs a fucking lift because they're shit and can't do it on their own.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44619067']The divide is still there.[/QUOTE] and it mostly seems to be based on class. The government should be working to provide opportunities for all poorer people.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44619192]Affirmative action basically says that X race is shitty and worse than this race and needs a fucking lift because they're shit and can't do it on their own.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It says X race/class/gender has been shit on or disadvantaged in some way for some period of time and, in order to create a fair society, those classes need to be allotted special rights.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44619232]No it doesn't. It says X race/class/gender has been shit on or disadvantaged in some way for some period of time and, in order to create a fair society, those classes need to be allotted special rights.[/QUOTE] How about instead of giving racist people an opportunity to hate other races even more, we just focus on equality instead?

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;44619242]How about instead of giving racist people an opportunity to hate other races even more, we just focus on equality instead?[/QUOTE] That's what affirmative action is.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44619250]That's what affirmative action is.[/QUOTE] Saying you only need 70 percent of a score and setting a lower bar is not equality. It's saying other races can't do as well and need a stool lol.

I think affirmative action doesn't have a place in American society anymore. I hope.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44619250]That's what affirmative action is.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Explosions;44619232]No it doesn't. It says X race/class/gender has been shit on or disadvantaged in some way for some period of time and, in order to create a fair society, [B]those classes need to be allotted special rights.[/B][/QUOTE] stop

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44619258]Saying you only need 70 percent of a score and setting a lower bar is not equality.[/QUOTE] that's, uh, not what affirmative action is?

If I (white guy) had better qualifications than a black guy and we were to apply for the same job and he got the job just because he is black, that is racism. To anyone who rated dumb, care to explain?

[QUOTE=viperfan7;44617919]Good, affirmative action is just another form of racism[/QUOTE] Hence why I have a problem with it being written into Section 15.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44619756]No, its not, its saying "hey disadvantaged minority, we're going to FORCE people to accept you, instead of solving the problem head on" You make arbitrary quotas, and say "yes its so that the minority has the same advantage" but what about the non minority that's denied because the organization doesn't have any more allocations for non minorities? Is that not also racist? You're denying someone purely based upon their race still.[/QUOTE] Can you enlighten me on how these problems are supposed to be solved "head on"?

You promote true equality between all races instead of forcing your own corrupt version of equality.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;44619520]If I (white guy) had better qualifications than a black guy and we were to apply for the same job and he got the job just because he is black, that is racism. To anyone who rated dumb, care to explain?[/QUOTE] Possibly, but you're ignoring other factors. Maybe you came off as a worse personality in the interview process, maybe the black guy lives closer to the workplace, maybe your idea of better qualifications doesn't match the employer's. Some employers even prefer hiring the guy with little to no qualification because they've put up with too many qualified people going "but I used to always do it [i]this[/i] way" Basically my point is "make absolutely sure that him being black is the only significant factor before flinging racism accusations"

snip

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44620014]You can fire people who are blatantly denying applications based upon race. Almost every other form of "racism" is already illegal under federal law. Or you can keep band-aiding the issue and being racist against the majority. You know.. because that's totally a great way to stop people from being racist.[/QUOTE] This is the part that I don't understand. We already have laws against racist hiring practices/government policies/etc. If we have proof that people are being racist, then why aren't they being convicted under those laws?

I live in Michigan so I can vouch for pretty much everything [Seed Eater] has said. But it is true, in respects to fixing Detroit's poverty issue, affirmative action is really only going to fix the problem for a short term. The real problem lies in a lack of school funding, and a lack of parent involvement in schools. These kids that graduate from these high schools are not dumb, they deserve to go to college and get a degree and get a good job. Affirmative Action will help that in the short run. But what we really want is for those people's kids to have schools that will get them into good colleges, and get their children into good colleges. We need this now. But we need much larger changes if we want anything to stick.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44620317]Because they aren't being racist, but people don't like to accept the fact that they weren't perfect for the job.[/QUOTE] They're not "perfect for the job" maybe because they've been marginalized and discriminated against throughout their schooling, early job opportunities, their general perception in society, etc. [editline]23rd April 2014[/editline] God forbid anyone tries to create equal opportunities for everyone.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44620344]They're not "perfect for the job" maybe because they've been marginalized and discriminated against throughout their schooling, early job opportunities, their general perception in society, etc. [editline]23rd April 2014[/editline] God forbid anyone tries to create equal opportunities for everyone.[/QUOTE] So why aren't all these racists being convicted under the already existing laws against racism? I'm sure there are tons of lawyers that would take the jobs with zero up front fee. Racism is a great way to get big settlements.

I'm ok with AF. I also think that financial aid should have as big as AF so it also includes people who might not meet the criteria of AF but are poor and have no real means of moving up. Social class is still a huge factor in things and how people think and perceive the world, I mean Judge Thomas is black and has on many occasions stated he does not agree with AF and always votes against it (such as this very case here). Class is just as big as a factor as race.