How does everyone feel about Bush weighing in on the supreme court case over the University of Michigan's race based admissions policies to promote diversity. I'll weigh in soon with my take on the related issues.

What is it about the Bush family and political suicide? This must be genetic--or arrogance in its extreme.

I'm a bit taken aback by the Executive branch directly messing with the Judicial. Is there precedence for this move?

Minority communities will remember this move and vote against Bush in 2004. It'll tick off a lot liberals and moderates of all parties. I think even some conservatives will see this as another power-play from big, central, heading-toward-dictatorial government.

Let the courts decide. That's their job. GWB, keep yer nose out of where it don't belong.

Of course there is. I would even venture to say FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court went MUCH further than is Bush.



Agreed. Perhaps Bush would prefer it if we would just stop pretending and call him king

Jaimie,

I understand the practice of packing courts, but this involves GWB sending in lawyers to argue a case. I don't remember any sitting (standing, laying, sneaking ) president doing this, but maybe it is common practice and just got noticed by the press.

Extrapolating, is it proper for the Executive to send lobbyists to Congress?

Your High(er-than-a-kite)ness!

It is not at all unusual for the executive branch to file an amicus brief on any given case. Actually, if I recall correctly, anyone can file an amicus brief in a case - on either side. As I understand it, that is what Bush is asking the Judiciary to do - file a brief. Sometimes the brief is argued in court and sometimes it just becomes part of the paper file.

You could get your attorney to do it and join the suit - on either side.

Did I get this wrong? Is there an attorney in the audience?

Basheva,

Interesting, and I do hope someone familiar with law pipes up. It is my understanding that the quota system, no matter how it is disguised, has already been knocked down, so this situation in Michigan will probably be knocked down too. So what prompted the Executive to add to the arguments? Just curious, you know

Personally I am ready to see the affirmative action system get phased out and replaced by a socio-economic based system that is race blind.

However, there is still discrimination in this country and it needs to be addressed and redressed when found in public life. (Yes this includes businesses that employ or serve the public)

However, this system is an important victory for American minorities. I think responsible leadership would bring in a replacement program that would represent the "other ways to achieve diversity" before throwing out the Affirmative Action apparatus.

The interview I heard from an official from the University of Michigan stated that the UM admissions program was specifically designed to be in conformity with the 1978(?) Bakke decision. I'll go try to get a link for that case.

University of California v. Bakke

I think that it is great that Bush has become what few politicians would dare, someone who will actually speak up for people OTHER than the minorities. All the time, we hear about how minorities have problems that need resolving through programs like Affirmative Action. There's no problem with that, and I agree that it is America's responsibility to help those who NEED it, but Afirmative Action is a unique issue.

It was instated to help, but now it has come to the point where it has run its course, because people are actually being hurt by it as well. You can't fight one wrong with another wrong, and I think Bush said something more or less to that same point. If no race is better than another in the great scheme of things, why is this not true when you're applying for college or a job? It just seems such a no-brainer to me...if you are an educational institution, then you should base your admissions on educational criteria, thus eliminating race from the picture. I think Bush understands this, and God bless him for it, because it's about time somebody with some influence realized (or rather spoke out upon) this obvious problem.

I blame the current American social system, where calling a minority (or one of their many programs, organizations, etc) on its problems is dubbed 'racist' and standing up for the rights of the majority is dubbed the same. Even if Affirmative Action was ruled unconstitutional, employers and admissions offices will still be under great pressure due to the ever-powerful race card. Bottom line, if one remaining spot is open and two candidates remain for that slot, one non-white and one white, there will be a strong chance that they will select the non-white candidate, regardless of qualifications, simply to avoid any backlash from cries of "racism!"

I don't know what alternatives there are to choose from, but as for the suggestion of a system where support is founded on a socio-economic basis, I don't think that would help matters either. Fred Grey, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s attorney, said in a recent television interview that "regardless of the conditions we were born in, because nobody has control over that, and regardless of our color or our socio-economic status, we can make a difference in our lives and in the lives of others." I agree with this, because there are plenty of people who were "rich" as children, yet failed to become successful as well as many people who were "poor" as children, and yet rose to become something great, very much like Mr. Grey.

It is with that that I want to exemplify my point: nobody needs help from the government that can see the light at the end of their respective tunnel and find it in themselves to reach it. Something needs to be done to level out the playing field, yes, but not to serve education on a silver platter. Affirmative Action is not the way, and I hope that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

NOTE: The above quote is not verbatim. It was taken from the January 17 airing of Channel One News, which can be viewed in its entirety at www.channelone.com.

"In choosing applicants for admission, the university relies in part on charts ranking them by grades and test scores-but use seperate charts for white and minority students" How can this not be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

I think he should stay out of the judicial system. He won't have to come out and say what he want's one way or the other if he could just get those rubber stamp judges in there fast enough. Then the arm twisting can be much more subtle.

He won't be able to please everyone no matter what his stance. He may even upset some of his hardcore conservative's when he doesn't go far enough.

Goddesses bless him for trying though.

Like he was going to win the minority vote if he did not do this. People do not realize what a crafty politician Bush is. He did not make this decision without 2004 in mind.

One of the biggest problems with Affirmative Action is that if thirteen people apply for a job and twelve are white males and the thirteenth is not and gets the job, then there are twelve people who believe that they would have gotten the job if it weren't for the non-white-male applicant. Eleven of those people are definitely wrong but that doesn't keep them from crying foul about it for the rest of their lives.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to an interview I have little idea of how many people actually applied for the same job. I have no idea what their racial backrounds or experience are and I've never heard anyone in a personell department ever volunteer the info that they were making a decision based on a quota.

I'm sure the people crying the loudest have no idea if it's ever even happened to them. Who will they blame for their problems once they don't have AA around anymore.

You can spin this argument any way you want.

Like in the case of Michigan.

If 13 Applicants put in their applications with all the same test scores, same social work and communtiy involvement, same HS gpa. But one was a Minority, they would get in instantly because of the instant 20 points you are scored for being a Minortiy.

Now here's what's really messed up.

If they all had the same social work and community involvement, same gpa. But the 12 white students all had perfect SAT scores and the one Minority had a score of 1100, the Minority would still get in because A perfect SAT score only acounts for 12 points, and the Minority status gets the applicant 20 instnat points.




Sleeper

I have been the victim (yes, poor me) twice because of my minority status (religious). I didn't have to guess at what was happening, I was told. Hard to believe, but true. This was in the days before it was illegal to openly do such a thing.

After these events while looking for employment I saw an ad in the classifieds that said "Minorities Are Encouraged to Apply" - and I said "YIPPEE!!!! That's me!"

So I called them and after telling them which minority I belonged to, I was told that I was the 'wrong' minority. So now we have right minorites and wrong minorites. Poor me!

I am against affirmative action - I want to be up front and honest here. In addition to affirming one group over another, it picks and chooses which minorities to affirm. I want a color blind society in which merit (and the content of one's heart) are the deciding factors. Martin Luther King was right.

Generally for college admission Asian students are treated the same as white students, though certainly Asian students are in the minority. The rationale for that is, Asian students don't need any help. Why is that? Because they can make it on their own? So, punish them for it?

I think that President Bush acted correctly (the courts will ultimately decide), he stated what he believed. The executive branch does have the right to state its positions and to file amicus briefs to support those positions - whether I agree with them or not.

In Texas as governor, as I recall, President Bush instituted a plan in which the top 10% of high school graduation from each high school was guaranteed college admission. That seems like a fairer approach to me. It's color blind and awards merit.

Whether the people agree with President Bush's positions (and the judges he submits for nomination) will be decided in the next election for president and congress.

Well, we can agree on one thing. I want a color blind society too. How do you think we can achieve that? I would love to hear a better idea than Affirmative Action.

*Merit*

End all preference on the basis of what kinds of genital organs or skin hue a person has and hire on the basis of
qualifications.
A radical idea? Maybe. But the only way to fairness. A much better idea than countering imbalances with preferences.

So discrimination has stopped and the glass ceiling is a feminist myth? The playing field has been effectively leveled and merit is the ideal out there just waiting to be accepted and affirmative action is holding it back?

I still come across plenty of racists in this day and age. I'm sure none of them are responsible for hiring or admissions though so let's just throw away all those silly rules that got us this far. I'm sure everyone can just play nice from now on...nothing more to worry about.

You will never be able to purge racist or sexist people from society by force, it must be weaned out over time.
Unfortunately this will probably take a long time, but I believe the 'level playing field' will come about easier from this point forward by a meritocratic system. I think AA served it's function, flawed as it was, but we need to change tactics now, Or is Arffirmative Action now to be a perpetual part of our history past present AND future?

Dontreadonme - I agree entirely with your post.

The aim is a system based on merit.

I am ready for a new direction in affirmative action. I believe that a permanent system that is race based will promote racism. However I also think that scrapping affirmative action without implementing its replacement (and I prefer some type of socio-economic system, the top 10% of high school graduates system looks pretty good to me) will reward people from good schools and affluent backgrounds and will move us away from the standard of a meritocracy.

To me it is like calling for tax cuts without providing the method with which to pay for them.

Government can provide leadership in this area. It has in the past and the effect has been significant.

I also agree with the top ten percent (actually Bush had that system as governer of Texas I believe) and it's a good idea. But, how do you apply that type of system to job hiring practices? The only way I can think of to measure racism or discrimination of any kind in the job market is quota's. That doesn't mean a certain job has to be given it means that a proportionate number of your staff should be a minority given your particular situation. If it isn't then there is something wrong that needs to be addressed.

Racism was/is much too deep and engrained in our society when we started AA. It's not completely gone and may not be for another couple of generations. Longer in some places. You can't just say it's all fixed now because it isn't simply because you don't like it and feel left out.

Because a member of a minority group is not represented in any given work force is not inherently evidence of bias.

Let me give you an example.......I believe the orchestra in question was the San Francisco Orchestra - but I could be mistaken on that.....

The orchestra management was told by a civil rights group (I don't know if it was a governmental group or not) that there were not enough of a certain minority group represented among the musicians. The orchestra replied that auditions were conducted with a screen separating applicants from judges. This enabled the judges to base their hiring criteria on sound, musicality, ability, technique, etc. What the musician looked like played no part in the choice.

The reply from the civil rights group was: there are not enough minorities in the orchestra - period.

If I were a member of a particular minority would I want to be hired to sit in the violin section because I was a member of a minority group or would I rather be hired because I was qualified?

The point is that just because you see an orchestra - or any other work force - that doesn't have a representative group of any or all particular minorites - does not automatically mean that racial bias is at play.

I would assume that they stuck to their quota because there was no reasonable explanation for the orchastra not to meet it. I would also assume that they would compare this phenomena with statistics from other orchestra's that had an application base of similar size and mix. If the others had no problem hiring minorities they were right to question why this one did and find ways to address the problem.

I think the NBA discriminates against whites and hispanics.

Three ideas I found as alternatives to Affirmative Action in higher education, from the National Center for Policy Analysis and USA Today (30 Aug 2000):

Percentage plans that automatically admit graduates at the top of each state high school class -- with Texas admitting the top 10 percent, California the top 4 percent and Florida the top 20 percent.

Various merit-based indexes are under development that attempt to recognize students who perform better than might be expected on standardized tests -- taking account of such factors as family income, school quality and race in some cases..

Research is underway to test the validity of an adaptability index which would supplement -- rather than replace -- standardized tests, utilizing trained observers to evaluate students' behavior as they engage in various group activities.

Actually, in the work place I think the courtroom is a good place to address discrimination. For example, if Basheva is told she is of the wrong religious persuasion to be given a job she has grounds for suing that employer. I think an innocent until proven guilty system can work with companies if the courts apply effective remedies that dramatically alter the company culture of an employer proven to have a pattern of discrimination.

But if the professions and the high arts are not getting minority applicants close to their percentage in our society is that a symptom of a social ill? (You can answer yes and still think it is not the government's place to step in)

I hate to have to enter another endless argument with you, Danya, but you always seem to say the exact things that cause me to respond. I don't think anyone has said that all racial problems have been fixed, number one, and if we were, it wouldn't be because we "don't like it and feel left out." It would be because it's unconstitutional and morally wrong. I think that the Supreme Court will realize this when it comes time to make a decision, and justice will be done. Neither I, nor anybody else, has said that Affirmative Action should not be replaced with another, better program, once eliminated. So please, stop putting words in the mouths of people who are really just speaking logically. Perhaps its YOU that is arguing "simply because you don't like it and [would] feel left out." How Democratic...

Neither I, nor anybody else, has said that Affirmative Action should not be replaced with another, better program, once eliminated. So please, stop putting words in the mouths of people who are really just speaking logically.

Again, I ask you, what better progam? I am not so commited to AA that I can't agree with a better program. You just never offer any kind of remedy to take it's place. If you have something better than AA speak up. Taking it away and replacing it with nothing will set us back years in some places (imo).

I only feel it's necessary to keep it in place (for hiring practices not necessarily education where other standards would work.) until another, reasonable and equally effective Act is proposed to replace it.

The courts are good as a last resort. But people looking for work usually don't have the kind of money needed to hire a lawyer that will face up to a company that may have dozens of lawyers of their own at their disposal to combat discrimination complaints.

It is foolish to think their would not be major setbacks without anyone to answer to. For every one case that does go to court you can bet there are ten more that don't want to go through the expense,time, and commitment a court battle would take.

Some type of watchdog agency should be in place while it's being phased out to make sure we don't lose any of the ground that's been gained and we continue to improve where it's needed.

CTE said;


Actually, that's not true. I don't know if you saw the study recently (I can't find the link just yet, but I'll try and get it) where a bunch of identical resumes were sent out to various business - identical except for the names. Half were given names that sounded "white," (or rather race neutral, like William or John or Jane) and the other half were given "ethnic" names like Tyrone or Jamal. In almost every case, the employers chose to call back the non-ethnic names for interviews. This suggests that these businesses may be trying to weed out supposedly ethnic job-seekers before it ever even gets to a point where one could pull the so-called "race card."

I was almost certainly the victim of affirmative action when I was applying to university. My best friend, who is Sri Lankan, had lower grades, SAT scores, and fewer advanced placement classes than I did. He got into UVA and I did not. I can't think of any reason other than affirmative action that got him in over me. But so what? It's not like I didn't get to go to college. I just shrugged it off. Millions of people have been denied things in the past merely for the color of their skin. What happened to me is not comparable to that widespread oppression in any way. I had tons of choices. There's a big difference between categorically denying a group of people any opportunity to get an education and you or I not getting into school A when we still can choose from schools B-Z.

By promoting race and gender preferences in jobs, government contracts, college admissions, forced busing and an apartheid-like system of racial gerrymandering, these policies deepen racial hostilities and undermine our commitment to individual rights while producing few tangible results.

Americans to reclaim and reinvigorate the original civil rights vision by grounding it in individual empowerment rather than group rights.

Someone here posted the fact that at this college they received only 12 points for a perfect SAT and 20 points for minority status (black, hispanic, and asian).

Somehow this is unacceptable to people who think it's their test scores that should matter. It's not OK if a hispanic with a less than perfect SAT score is chosen over a white person with a perfect SAT score.

Why isn't anyone outraged that they have a quota for jocks, even the ones that don't get a perfect SAT score? They still get 20 points instead of twelve just for being an athlete.

If I wanted to whine I could say that isn't fair to kids that are handicapped or asthmatic. Or to kids that apply themselves to things of a scholarly nature like science or math. If it's to promote extraciricular activies where is music or drama represented?

People see nothing wrong with giving 20 points for brainless jock but scream oppression if it's given to a minority. If you're a minority AND an athlete do you still get the 20 points if they change the laws?

You may hereby officially consider this my


SCREAM

so much for giving jocks extra points.

To heck with the 14th Amendment. We do not want them silly amendments to interfere with another feely-good program.

I still have not formulated my opinions on affirmative action, but this is what stood out the most for me when reading an article about this on CNN. Even if I choose to support affirmative action, these numbers seem a bit skewed to me.

I believe, that those 20 points that were given out for minority status did not include Asians. It's a case, again, of being the 'wrong' minority.

Yes, blacks and hispanics better not strive too hard to equal whites in standard test scores. They might lose their advantages.

In 1966 the courts had invalidated the Univ. of Texas's minority-admissions program. Democrats in the legislature came up with a clever, superficially race-blind alternative: automatic acceptance for the top 10 percent of students from every Texas high school, many of which have almost exclusively minority enrollments. Ever cautious about alienating "the base" Bush declined to support the measure, but signed it with considerable fanfare after it passed.

Taking the top students from each school sounds fair. But, in fact, it allows less qualified minority students from bad schools to leapfrog more highly qualified students from more-demanding schools. That, in turn, can encourage the educational segregation--at least in secondary school--that affirmative action is supposed to end.

And, why doesn't Bush call for an end of all preferential treatment by college admissions.....LEGACIES? Bush himself probably would not have been admitted to Yale, thanks to his thoroughly unimpressive SAT score of 1206, nearly 200 points lower than the average incoming Yale freshman's score at the time, had it not been for legacies.

Madtown

[quote=Madtown,Jan 21 2003, 10:23 PM] [QUOTE=Danya,Jan 19 2003, 01:32 PM]I also agree Taking the top students from each school sounds fair. But, in fact, it allows less qualified minority students from bad schools to leapfrog more highly qualified students from more-demanding schools. That, in turn, can encourage the educational segregation--at least in secondary school--that affirmative action is supposed to end.

And, why doesn't Bush call for an end of all preferential treatment by college admissions.....LEGACIES? Bush himself probably would not have been admitted to Yale, thanks to his thoroughly unimpressive SAT score of 1206, nearly 200 points lower than the average incoming Yale freshman's score at the time, had it not been for legacies.

Madtown [/quote]
Kudos on the legacy comment. The good old boy network is alive and well.

A point about the top ten percent theory. If all people are reasonably equally capable as groups entering high school, than shouldn't the top 5% of people coming from a bad high school as accomplished as the top 5% coming from a good one? I grant you at the time of admission one of the top 5% groups would be better educated and probably be trained with better educational skills, but isn't climbing to a certain level a sign of competence? (Asking not preaching)

Also if the school systems had this percentage system, wouldn't there be an incentive to go to schools where it would seem to be easier to get in that percentage? Could this not actually be a mechanism to get better students and presumably students with more active parents spread out over more schools? Could this be a method to improve weaker schools?

Affirmative Action is an idea OF FDR'S, not Nixon's.

(From Are all African Americans Liberals)


In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph.
During 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ."
The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.
Other equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."

Madtown

Legislation and policy that is against discrimination (while certainly laudatory) is not the same thing as affirmative action. Affirmative action is an action oriented policy, not just negativing an existing policy.



For More Click Here

You are right that FDR did (as you will see in the above article) institute the beginning of anti-segregation legislation in contracting with the government - that is not the same as affirmative action.

Affirmative action was the next step.

Basheva,
My quick search backs your position up about Nixon expanding the scope of affirmative action. I will swallow any hedges (other than this) unless I stumble upon new info.

Interesting link related to an earlier post.

Bush a flawed messenger to oppose affirmative action

[QUOTE=Basheva,Jan 22 2003, 12:06 AM]Legislation and policy that is against discrimination (while certainly laudatory) is not the same thing as affirmative action. Affirmative action is an action oriented policy, not just negativing an existing policy.

The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson.


Just another example of Republicans taking off with Democrats ideas.

Madtown

[quote=Basheva,Jan 22 2003, 12:06 AM]
1970: President Nixon extended the use of goals and timetables to all federal contractors.
 
1974: President Nixon declared that affirmative action programs should also include women. [/QUOTE]

[ [/quote]
The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.

Nixon may have added goals and timetables and expanded the program, but he is not the author of Affirmative Action.

Madtown

Oh, Democrats can take ALL the credit for Affirmative Action. Every ounce of it.

Madtown - very little happens in a vacuum. I never said that Democrats have had nothing to do with affirmative action - I merely pointed out that Republicans have done their share.

To point out the share done by one group doesn't automatically negate the work done by the other.