PDA

View Full Version : Racial profiling and Racial Preferences



Chris
06-25-2013, 09:31 AM
The court issued a decision yesterday in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

My question is this: If racial profiling is wrong then for the same reasons aren't racial preferences wrong?

Mainecoons
06-25-2013, 10:02 AM
Yes.

Chris
06-25-2013, 10:11 AM
George Will, in Supreme Court doesn’t resolve wrongs of affirmative action (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-court-doesnt-resolve-wrongs-of-affirmative-action/2013/06/24/544ee214-dd04-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html), makes the following comments:


“In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.”

— Justice Harry Blackmun, 1978

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

...Tinkering with diversity in a student body could, the court said in Bakke, be regarded as a First Amendment right — the exercise of academic freedom. So, the court’s acceptance of a “compelling” government interest in diversity, and of an educational institution’s entitlement to deference in defining diversity, was a license for universities to base actions on race forever.

...As condign punishment for the wrong turn it took in Bakke, the court has been entangled for 35 years in a thicket of preferences that are not remedial and hence are not temporary....

Because the 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws,” universities wishing to ignore that guarantee in order to use racial classifications in admissions must be accorded “some” deference in their exercise of academic freedom....

What a tangled web the court weaves when first it practices to deceive itself about what it is doing to the equal protection guarantee. The 14th Amendment stops guaranteeing equal protection when the court defers to the “experience and expertise” of public universities in fine-tuning the racial and ethnic compositions of their student bodies in order to attain a “critical mass” of certain government-approved minorities.

...In an opinion concurring with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny was required but not applied to Texas’s use of race, Justice Clarence Thomas says of “racial engineering”: There is no compelling governmental interest in whatever educational benefits supposedly flow from racial diversity that must be achieved by racial discrimination. Thomas should tell the chief justice that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop pretending that strict scrutiny of such discrimination somehow makes it something other than what it is.

Mister D
06-25-2013, 10:12 AM
What a cowardly court.

Cigar
06-25-2013, 12:46 PM
The court issued a decision yesterday in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

My question is this: If racial profiling is wrong then for the same reasons aren't racial preferences wrong?


So you you believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong?

Wow ... there's a lot of people in history who died trying to drill that concept into America.

Glade to see you're on board ... spread the word.

Chris
06-25-2013, 12:54 PM
So you you believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong?

Wow ... there's a lot of people in history who died trying to drill that concept into America.

Glade to see you're on board ... spread the word.


You're welcome.

GrassrootsConservative
06-25-2013, 02:17 PM
So you you believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong?

Wow ... there's a lot of people in history who died trying to drill that concept into America.

Glade to see you're on board ... spread the word.


"Glade" :laughing6:

nic34
06-25-2013, 02:27 PM
So you you believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong?

Wow ... there's a lot of people in history who died trying to drill that concept into America.

Glade to see you're on board ... spread the word.


Sorry cigar, they still don't get it...

GrassrootsConservative
06-25-2013, 02:29 PM
Sorry cigar, they still don't get it...

His signature is designed to make blacks look better than whites.

We "get it" perfectly, nic.

The racial preferences of Cigar and yourself are disgusting to 99% of people.

Have fun at your panther rallies.

nic34
06-25-2013, 02:32 PM
His signature is designed to make blacks look better than whites.

We "get it" perfectly, nic.

The racial preferences of Cigar and yourself are disgusting to 99% of people.

Have fun at your panther rallies.

This post serves to show just how little you know... young one.

GrassrootsConservative
06-25-2013, 02:36 PM
This post serves to show just how little you know... young one.

If the following doesn't show a racial preference then I don't know what does:


Not all White People were sick evil people in the 1960's

That "not all" at the beginning suggests that most of them were.

You should be ashamed for siding with that racist.

Mister D
06-25-2013, 02:36 PM
Sorry cigar, they still don't get it...

Aside from Cigar, we were all arguing against racial discrimination (AKA Affirmative Action). We've always gotten it. Glad he finally came on board. Better late than never.

Chris
06-25-2013, 02:44 PM
So you you believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong?

Wow ... there's a lot of people in history who died trying to drill that concept into America.

Glade to see you're on board ... spread the word.



You're welcome.


Sorry cigar, they still don't get it...

Excuse me, who is "they" and what is "it"? Cigar clearly seems to "believe showing preference to one race over another is wrong".

Mainecoons
06-25-2013, 02:50 PM
Not quite. Showing racial preference to anyone but whites is OK with all the liberals here, it would appear.

nic34
06-25-2013, 04:46 PM
So, we come to another problem with affirmative action. Its existence is the admission of continued racism and sexism.

In the United States, the bad faith language of denial has hijacked the language of affirmative action. The expression "past discrimination" dominates debates. Past discrimination? If racial and gender discrimination were aberrations of the past, that would mean that no overseer of criteria is any longer motivated by racist and sexist goals. It would mean there is no racial or gender discrimination, which would make the use of race or gender as criteria unjust. It would be prejudice. Yet, as we know, the language of "reverse discrimination" emerged in the US. Such language turned the tables on the situation. In effect, it made discrimination a reality faced only by white males precisely through denying the continued existence of racism and sexism.

In the end, affluent whites, although welcoming the idea of integrated neighborhoods, prefer to live in segregated places in practice. Even white lower-middle-class and working-class people have access to neighborhoods with more resources and possibilities of accrued wealth than many blacks with higher incomes. None of this is news to black middle-class people. As with the affirmative action debate, the truth here could be denied only through closing one's eyes to the continued practice of racism at institutional levels.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2640:the-problem-with-affirmative-action

Chris
06-25-2013, 04:51 PM
Yes, as even cigar said, it exists in racial preferences, nic. That seems undeniable.

Mister D
06-25-2013, 05:36 PM
I love how truth-out is presented as something other than a far left kook fest. :laugh:

nic34
06-25-2013, 05:39 PM
lowering youself to "attack the messenger" status...? tsk...