It is undeniable that the recent Supreme Court decision allowing "diversity programs" violates the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment as well as equal opportunity law. Are policies that discriminate against specific races worth upholding to achieve the "compelling state interest in diversity?" Is it fair that almost all of the favoritism is shown to blacks instead of other minorities as well? Being that those schools that are 90% black aren't forced (or even asked) to diversify, is any of this genuinely about diversity?

I would like to see the state demonstrate its "compelling state interest in diversity."

Sure it is a nice buzzword, but does it really mean anything?

The Japanese are largely homogenous, and seem to do ok without so-called "diversity".

The argument that some black leaders forward is that blacks need affirmative action programs to counter the last century (has it REALLY been 138 years since the end of the Civil War? during which time many other groups have successfully integrated without the need for direct government intervention?) of discrimination. In the view of some of these black leaders, AA is not about minorities, it is about the black minority.
A simple, honest solution to the affirmative-action puzzle.


I am one of those who favors AA (when it comes to education) on an economic basis. Educating the poor (or at least, giving them some opportunity to educate themselves) is laudable. Giving preferences based upon race is discrimination.

The Japanese definitely have their ethnic/racial problems. I do not think their way is any good model for emulation this side of the Birch Society.

They are relatively intolerant of non-Japanese but they are not without their minority groups. (Ainu, Koreans for example)

Exactly. But do they have (or need) diversity programs?

Is their society successful without them?

Well, after about a decade of economic stagnation, an effectively one-party state, and with the continued constitutional need to prevent Japanese forces from ever seeing action abroad, one could argue that their society isn't quite as successful as, say, the USA or UK or France (1, 4 and 5 in the economic rankings) and that a dose of heterogeneity might be just what they need, perhaps facilitated by some kind of diversity programs.

You might as well ask, Was our society successful before the Civil Rights Movement?

On the basis of social justice my answer is a resounding no on both parts.

In terms of economics I believe such practices are wholly inefficient. If discrimination excludes members of certain ethnic groups and a gender from effective participation in the economy then that society loses the benefits of many talented members. What is Honda-san was an ainu? Would his talents have been lost to Japan? Probably so.

My point does not go into discrimination, it goes to DIVERSITY.

Will Japan necessarily benefit by a large influx of whites? of blacks? of Hispanics?

The answer is "not necessarily".

This points to me that "diversity" is not really a worthy goal, while equality is.

My point is that is Japan better utilized its present diversity, the Japanese society and economy would benefit.

At Tennessee State University and Alabama State University the schools are being made to increase their diversity. Both schools presently offer minority scholarships to white students.

Sorry for double post

Why? Do you have any proof to back up this claim? Have their been any studies done on the ACTUAL economic benefits of diversity? What about the ACTUAL social results of "diversity programs"?

In short, can you back up your proposition with any evidence?

Nope Bikeredad I have not conducted such a study and I did not claim to have access to one. Using logic I made this conclusion.

I will try this out for you.

Premise #1: no group is inherently inferior to another
Premise #2: the next great contributor to society is likely to appear at random from any segment of society.
Premise #3: if 20% of the population is discriminated the next Bill Gates may be prevented from contributing to society.
Premise #4: If 100% of a society has equal opportunity, then the chances of realizing the great contributions (and for that matter, the myriad of lessor contribution from the excluded group) are reduced.

Not asserted, but applicable: a country open to diversity and appealing to groups all over the world can benefit from the contribution.

Do you know any famous immigrants who have contributed to our society?
Thomas Paine, Andrew Carnegie and von Braun for a random scattering off the top of my head for starters.

So that is the work behind my logic. Do you have any studies that refute it? An argument that sounds more plausible? Put it forward.

Amlord suggested that instead of AA policies based on race, it would be more appropriate to support such policies based on income. I think unfortunately, the result of such financial-need-based programs would be virtually the same.

What does this mean? Unless you're swayed by social Darwinism, it suggests that "diversification" policies are a reaction to a difficult truth: minorities do not enjoy equal advantages in many aspects of our society.

I believe AA and other such programs benefit not just blacks and other minorities, but society in general. While they can and do negatively affect a number of white individuals, they offer benefits to society as a whole that outweigh the drawbacks.

By all means, change the policies to income-based increased opportunities - and watch the blacks continue to reap immediate benefits. But don't forget that the secondary benefit - that of a more integrated, cohesive, and self-sufficient society - is enjoyed by all.

Your statement is very much "deniable" as a majority of the Supreme Court ruled in a split judgment that the concept of affirmative action was constitutional but the way that the University of Michigan implemented it was not.

Secondly, President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. Not a constitutional amendment and there's a huge difference between the two.

Furthermore, what do you offer as proof that the Supreme Court's decision upholding affirmative action is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and/or equal opportunity law? You have offered up your opinion, but nothing else to support this claim.

There is no benefit to diversity. There is a huge benefit to equal opportunity for all.

Aquapub began this on July 13, Sego added something positive on Aug 28.

My first reaction was, OH no, another anti black thread until I saw the dates.

I think Kmsouthern has contributed a lot of time and effort to educate us that AA is not an exclusively black issue.

I disagree with Hugo that there is no benefit to diversity. In my opinion, being an American there is no life without it, its a fact of our very being as a nation. Equal opportunity must follow Becuase of this fact in our lives.

AA has benefitted many but possibly outgrown its need, soon. Good thing, we are getting somewhere.

Let me back up a bit. There are benefits to diversity. Most of them are not economic. When diversity is promoted over equal opportunity then the costs of achieving diversity outweigh the benefits.

The concept called “Diversity” is a political one and has very little if anything to do with fairness. Why do I say this? -- The list of personal traits we look at when deciding how we’re going to respond to a person is probably a pretty long one. Actually, it’s probably a very long one if we were aware of them all – conscious and unconscious. People with the southern accent of the late Strom Thurman probably aren’t favored among the Fortune 500 brass. Neither are really ugly women favored for TV news or grossly overweight people for anything – well maybe comedians. Should I favor these "groups?" So isn’t the list of the “groups” I can come up with really based more on what or who I want to see get a boost through ‘diversity’ treatment than any other factor. Of all the potentials out there - those on this long long list who actually get pushed to the top and are noticed are more a reflection of a personal or political agenda than anything real out there in space and time. Why wouldn’t my decision to favor fat ugly girls when admitting to someplace like the University of Michigan be just as valid, and maybe even more valid, than your decision to base it merely on skin color? Yet, in real life we see skin color favored in that situation.

So the observation becomes – This appears to be little more than a big political game with the winners deciding who they want to favor. Is it a game - nothing more or less -- the “diversity concept” in actual use is artifically limited and therefore appears to be nothing more than a political tool as it is used in our (US) culture --- In fact the argument can be made that the idea call diversity can be applied to anyone of use and we could receive the preferences conferred IF you look close enough at the individual rather than simply at the category -

The problem is that this doesn't make any sense. Society has no obligation to foster "the next great contributor". Nobody gave Bill Gates special treatment, he achieved what he achieved because of his own hard work and circumstance. There are no discriminated-against racial groups, people have the same opportunity to get ahead as those in the same community. Setting up racial quotas that are inherently discriminatory, rather than basing things like college acceptance solely on educational qualifications, is absolutely wrong.



And how many of those got ahead because of racially-based programs? Absolutely none of them. They got ahead because THEY WORKED HARD AND DESERVED IT!

No, what's absolutely wrong and borderline delusional is the ridiculous notion that "there are no discriminated-against racial groups."

Upon what do you base this nonsense Cephus besides your own smug and unsupported assertions?

The playing field hasn't been leveled yet merely because you say it is. There's too much empirical evidence to the contrary.

If you like, I'd be glad to offer proof to back my point. Can you do the same to back up yours?

No, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for it. Sure, you can point out where an INDIVIDUAL was discriminated against, and there still is plenty of discrimination by individuals against other individuals. What you can't prove is that there is institutional discrimination against an entire segment of the population.

You can't show that schools in general discriminate against blacks, for instance. For every black student who was denied admittance, you can find a dozen others who are attending the school, and I'm sure that if you look at the black student's academic records, you'll find why he wasn't accepted. Not his race, but his grades.

The only demonstrable case of institutionalized racial bias in schools today is affirmative action, and that just sends the message that minority students can't cut it on their own, they need help to achieve the same thing white students do on their own.

Racism is racism and it's bad regardless of who is doing it.