• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Affirmative Action - Could Justice Alito's Vote Change the Game?

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Supreme Court could decide this week whether to delve into yet another hot-button social issue: affirmative action.

At issue is a lawsuit brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student, who said she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin. If the justices vote to hear the case, it could mean a majority of the court is willing to curtail or further restrict race-conscious admissions policies at public universities.
Click to expand...

Is this such a bad thing? I believe in Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that no decision on education can be made because of race. In 2003, the Grutter case established a "racial preference" in university admissions, which, IMHO, is unconstitutional. Most likely, SCOTUS is going to revisit that case, and reverse that decision. Thus, the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education will be upheld.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
I think affirmative actions served a useful purpose at one time, but I think it is time for it to go away.
 
Affirmative action was always just treating the symptom of the larger problem of poverty and underfunded school systems in minority neighborhoods.
 
Redress said:
I think affirmative actions served a useful purpose at one time, but I think it is time for it to go away.
Click to expand...

then you must believe that there are no longer instances where individuals are denied opportunities only because of their race, ethnicity, age, disability, marital status or sexual orientation
interesting position - quite wrong, however
 
justabubba said:
then you must believe that there are no longer instances where individuals are denied opportunities only because of their race, ethnicity, age, disability, marital status or sexual orientation
interesting position - quite wrong, however
Click to expand...
Not sure how you got that out of his post, particularly when the OP discusses the discrimination against Abigail Fisher based solely upon the color of her skin.
 
Are we speaking of any actual laws, or people who break the law?
 
affirmative action and other quota based system of policement are the only tools available to determine if "rights" are being violated.
 
ARealConservative said:
affirmative action and other quota based system of policement are the only tools available to determine if "rights" are being violated.
Click to expand...

Quotas are illegal. Have been since 78.

Sorry.

:coffeepap
 
Redress said:
I think affirmative actions served a useful purpose at one time, but I think it is time for it to go away.
Click to expand...

How is making it a rule that we should judge a person solely on ability, no longer a useful rule?
 
ARealConservative said:
affirmative action and other quota based system of policement are the only tools available to determine if "rights" are being violated.
Click to expand...

quotas have nothing to do with Affirmative action.
 
Tettsuo said:
How is making it a rule that we should judge a person solely on ability, no longer a useful rule?
Click to expand...

To be honest, without race being in the mix at all, we've never done this and never will. Sorry.
 
Tettsuo said:
How is making it a rule that we should judge a person solely on ability, no longer a useful rule?
Click to expand...
Was the girl mentioned in the OP judged solely on ability? Or was there something else at play?
 
Tettsuo said:
quotas have nothing to do with Affirmative action.
Click to expand...

right

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group.

Now how do we determine if a group is underrepresented?
 
Fletch said:
Not sure how you got that out of his post, particularly when the OP discusses the discrimination against Abigail Fisher based solely upon the color of her skin.
Click to expand...

i got that out of a post which advocated ending affirmative action
if there are still instances where circumstances beyond one's control, such as race, cause them to be denied opportunities, then it is premature to end the processes which correct such discrimination
 
justabubba said:
then you must believe that there are no longer instances where individuals are denied opportunities only because of their race, ethnicity, age, disability, marital status or sexual orientation
interesting position - quite wrong, however
Click to expand...

That would be incorrect.
 
danarhea said:
Is this such a bad thing? I believe in Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that no decision on education can be made because of race. In 2003, the Grutter case established a "racial preference" in university admissions, which, IMHO, is unconstitutional. Most likely, SCOTUS is going to revisit that case, and reverse that decision. Thus, the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education will be upheld.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...
The spirit of Brown v. Board will be upheld when institutional racism no longer affects the funding and resources allocated to schools. Until then, Affirmative Action is something I will support. I don't support rejecting candidates because they are white, however, but that's not what Affirmative Action is, so...
 
Tettsuo said:
How is making it a rule that we should judge a person solely on ability, no longer a useful rule?
Click to expand...

That is not all that affirmative action does, nor is that what is being challenged. What is being challenged is giving additional benefits to minorities.
 
ARealConservative said:
right

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group.

Now how do we determine if a group is underrepresented?
Click to expand...

But you can't have a quota. The person must be qualified. And you cannot, by law, make race a deciding factor.

And again, quotas are and have been illegal.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Not with a quota...

A quota is what people illegally set AFTER they determine a group is under-represented.

Try again.
Click to expand...

you are dodging. you seem to not want to explain how group representation is figured. I would do it by calculating the proportional part or share of the total amount or quantity. Does that sound like a reasonable way to determine representation?
 
Tettsuo said:
How is making it a rule that we should judge a person solely on ability, no longer a useful rule?
Click to expand...

Because when that is the only rule, people don't actually follow it. Outlawing discrimination doesn't stop it from happening. AA was enacted and is carried out based on the extremely correct assumption that prejudice and bigotry will still occur, even when they are not socially acceptable, or even legal. AA attempts to tip the scales back into balance.

I would love to see a society where a person is judged solely on ability. AA moves us closer to that, rather than farther.
 
ARealConservative said:
you are dodging. you seem to not want to explain how group representation is figured. I would do it by calculating the proportional part or share of the total amount or quantity. Does that sound like a reasonable way to determine representation?
Click to expand...
I'm not dodging. Tet said AA has nothing to do with quotas. You said it does by implying quotas are used to determine under-representation. I let you know that quotas are not used to determine under-representation. Debate solved. Unless you have proof that quotas are used to determine under-representation then we have nothing more to discuss. I'm not interested in whatever new tangent you're on.
 
Paschendale said:
Affirmative action was always just treating the symptom of the larger problem of poverty and underfunded school systems in minority neighborhoods.
Click to expand...
It is not the symptom, it is the problem. No amount of affirmative action can undo what nature has done. Not all people are truly born equal, except in law. This I believe is accepted by all. Given all then AA in the world cannot 'correct' a certain order of things mandated by nature. Races have evolved with certain strengths to allow them to flourish in specific environments, not unlike Darwin's observations of the Galapagos Islands.

In order to allow groups to flourish, the natural environment needs to be changed, not the society in which they live. If over 40 years of affirmative action has made nary a dent in this inequality, perhaps a rational-based rethink without PC absurdities may not be out of line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom