The case the Supreme Court ruled on wasn't about Affirmative Action. It was about states having the right to vote on issues such as Affirmative Action. This is the way our government is supposed to work.
Giving preferential treatment to someone because of their race, gender, sexual preference, or religion is not in the constitution. The voters in Michigan voted against state institutions giving preferential treatment to one group of people over another group of people. Because of that theory the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the michigan voters.
The case the Supreme Court ruled on wasn't about Affirmative Action. It was about states having the right to vote on issues such as Affirmative Action. This is the way our government is supposed to work.
Giving preferential treatment to someone because of their race, gender, sexual preference, or religion is not in the constitution. The voters in Michigan voted against state institutions giving preferential treatment to one group of people over another group of people. Because of that theory the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the michigan voters.
everything is in the constitution and nothing is in the constitution, depends on how it is interpreted.
i agree with affirmative action but not sure about the federal government mandating the rules. i think it's different from outright discrimination rules that the federal government needs to get involved with because the bible states can't be trusted to handle it on their own.
everything is in the constitution and nothing is in the constitution, depends on how it is interpreted.
i agree with affirmative action but not sure about the federal government mandating the rules. i think it's different from outright discrimination rules that the federal government needs to get involved with because the bible states can't be trusted to handle it on their own.
everything is in the constitution and nothing is in the constitution, depends on how it is interpreted.
i agree with affirmative action but not sure about the federal government mandating the rules. i think it's different from outright discrimination rules that the federal government needs to get involved with because the bible states can't be trusted to handle it on their own.
You agree with lowering standards for a group of people to get into college or get a job/promotion?
everything is in the constitution and nothing is in the constitution, depends on how it is interpreted.
i agree with affirmative action but not sure about the federal government mandating the rules. i think it's different from outright discrimination rules that the federal government needs to get involved with because the bible states can't be trusted to handle it on their own.
You agree with lowering standards for a group of people to get into college or get a job/promotion?
You agree with lowering standards for a group of people to get into college or get a job/promotion?
yes, given the amount of racism i see on a regular basis, and the obstacles that black people have to deal with in education, job opportunities, criminal issues, and other areas, i think we need to do that and more to try and make up for all the things that are done to handicap black people.
You agree with lowering standards for a group of people to get into college or get a job/promotion?
yes, given the amount of racism i see on a regular basis, and the obstacles that black people have to deal with in education, job opportunities, criminal issues, and other areas, i think we need to do that and more to try and make up for all the things that are done to handicap black people.
yes, given the amount of racism i see on a regular basis, and the obstacles that black people have to deal with in education, job opportunities, criminal issues, and other areas, i think we need to do that and more to try and make up for all the things that are done to handicap black people.
The SCOTUS case wasn't about affirmative action but I'm sure this thread is going to go in that direction.
What's that racism you speak of? Are white people sneaking into black schools at night and stealing their books? or are you like some other posters and you are an expert at dog whistle politics?
"We need to cut govt spending" translation "RACIST!" "We need to be tough on crime" translation "RACIST!"
Supporters of affirmative action are basically admitting one group of people are dumber than another group of people and if we don't lower their standards they will never get into college or get a promotion.
Should we also lower the scores needed on gameshows? Group A needs 100pts to win but Group B only needs 50pts?
yes, given the amount of racism i see on a regular basis, and the obstacles that black people have to deal with in education, job opportunities, criminal issues, and other areas, i think we need to do that and more to try and make up for all the things that are done to handicap black people.
The SCOTUS case wasn't about affirmative action but I'm sure this thread is going to go in that direction.
What's that racism you speak of? Are white people sneaking into black schools at night and stealing their books? or are you like some other posters and you are an expert at dog whistle politics?
"We need to cut govt spending" translation "RACIST!" "We need to be tough on crime" translation "RACIST!"
Supporters of affirmative action are basically admitting one group of people are dumber than another group of people and if we don't lower their standards they will never get into college or get a promotion.
Should we also lower the scores needed on gameshows? Group A needs 100pts to win but Group B only needs 50pts?
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
i'm not familiar with the decision. i'm just commenting on affirmative action in general.
i can only tell you what i've seen as i've gone through my different jobs. schools in black neighborhoods neglected while the ones in the nicer neighborhoods get funding, and assistance. black people disproportionately arrested for the same garbage white people do. black people getting worse sentences than similarly situated white people. and once that happens, getting a job is very difficult. we see who gets hired at various government jobs, companies we deal with. not many black people. we see who gets big contracts from the government, it's more about connections there but the connected are almost never black people. basically, in every area where we have experience, white people seem to get preferential treatment and the advantage.
i'm not familiar with the decision. i'm just commenting on affirmative action in general.
i can only tell you what i've seen as i've gone through my different jobs. schools in black neighborhoods neglected while the ones in the nicer neighborhoods get funding, and assistance. black people disproportionately arrested for the same garbage white people do. black people getting worse sentences than similarly situated white people. and once that happens, getting a job is very difficult. we see who gets hired at various government jobs, companies we deal with. not many black people. we see who gets big contracts from the government, it's more about connections there but the connected are almost never black people. basically, in every area where we have experience, white people seem to get preferential treatment and the advantage.
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
probably agree with all street on this. i think voters have a right to vote on most things, but in some areas, like discrimination (i.e. interracial marriage, happy marriage, whether businesses can reject a customer based on race or sexual orientation and things like that) certain states have shown they can't be trusted to vote on them so the federal government has to step in to make it right.
as for this case, i think you are assuming an equal starting point when you say they are voting on keeping everyone equal. i don't know michigan so maybe they don't have that kind of racism. i doubt it, but i don't know. if they do, then the starting point isn't equality but a serious lack of it. however, we all know the federla government is rarely a good remedy for many problems so i'm not quick to say let the federal government mandate affirmative action issues.
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
probably agree with all street on this. i think voters have a right to vote on most things, but in some areas, like discrimination (i.e. interracial marriage, happy marriage, whether businesses can reject a customer based on race or sexual orientation and things like that) certain states have shown they can't be trusted to vote on them so the federal government has to step in to make it right.
as for this case, i think you are assuming an equal starting point when you say they are voting on keeping everyone equal. i don't know michigan so maybe they don't have that kind of racism. i doubt it, but i don't know. if they do, then the starting point isn't equality but a serious lack of it. however, we all know the federla government is rarely a good remedy for many problems so i'm not quick to say let the federal government mandate affirmative action issues.
probably agree with all street on this. i think voters have a right to vote on most things, but in some areas, like discrimination (i.e. interracial marriage, happy marriage, whether businesses can reject a customer based on race or sexual orientation and things like that) certain states have shown they can't be trusted to vote on them so the federal government has to step in to make it right.
as for this case, i think you are assuming an equal starting point when you say they are voting on keeping everyone equal. i don't know michigan so maybe they don't have that kind of racism. i doubt it, but i don't know. if they do, then the starting point isn't equality but a serious lack of it. however, we all know the federla government is rarely a good remedy for many problems so i'm not quick to say let the federal government mandate affirmative action issues.
Take this scenario: Black person grows up living in a mansion in Beverly Hills vs a white person who grew up in a trailer park in Mississippi. Should a university give preferential treatment to the white person because their starting point wasn't as good as the black persons?
probably agree with all street on this. i think voters have a right to vote on most things, but in some areas, like discrimination (i.e. interracial marriage, happy marriage, whether businesses can reject a customer based on race or sexual orientation and things like that) certain states have shown they can't be trusted to vote on them so the federal government has to step in to make it right.
as for this case, i think you are assuming an equal starting point when you say they are voting on keeping everyone equal. i don't know michigan so maybe they don't have that kind of racism. i doubt it, but i don't know. if they do, then the starting point isn't equality but a serious lack of it. however, we all know the federla government is rarely a good remedy for many problems so i'm not quick to say let the federal government mandate affirmative action issues.
Take this scenario: Black person grows up living in a mansion in Beverly Hills vs a white person who grew up in a trailer park in Mississippi. Should a university give preferential treatment to the white person because their starting point wasn't as good as the black persons?
Take this scenario: Black person grows up living in a mansion in Beverly Hills vs a white person who grew up in a trailer park in Mississippi. Should a university give preferential treatment to the white person because their starting point wasn't as good as the black persons?
i see your point but that really isn't what affirmative action is about. it's about a longstanding pattern of racism and unequal opportunity that black people have been dealing with that white people haven't. it would be great if everyone got an even playing field regardless of race but i don't think that has happened or is happening, at least where i've seen. white people get fucked by AA, no doubt. my dad was a very good example of this. it's an imperfect solution to a complex problem but i think it is definitely a problem that needs some help. like healthcare, like foreign policy, like so many other issues, the solution will have problems but until someone has a better idea, i think you have to go with the best one on the table.
Take this scenario: Black person grows up living in a mansion in Beverly Hills vs a white person who grew up in a trailer park in Mississippi. Should a university give preferential treatment to the white person because their starting point wasn't as good as the black persons?
i see your point but that really isn't what affirmative action is about. it's about a longstanding pattern of racism and unequal opportunity that black people have been dealing with that white people haven't. it would be great if everyone got an even playing field regardless of race but i don't think that has happened or is happening, at least where i've seen. white people get fucked by AA, no doubt. my dad was a very good example of this. it's an imperfect solution to a complex problem but i think it is definitely a problem that needs some help. like healthcare, like foreign policy, like so many other issues, the solution will have problems but until someone has a better idea, i think you have to go with the best one on the table.
You spoke about the schools and the neighborhoods in the inner city. We've all heard the saying "Poverty Breeds Crime". You can also look at it this way "Crime Breeds Poverty."
If you were going to start a business would you invest your money and time in the inner city of Chicago, where 44 people were shot over the last few days, or would you go into one of the more affluent suburbs where zero people have been shot?
If libs think slavery is the reason for 1. poverty, 2. education, 3. crime and 4. the illegitimacy rate in the inner city wouldn't those four categories have been worse a hundred years ago? The further we get away from the end of slavery the worse things get.
You spoke about the schools and the neighborhoods in the inner city. We've all heard the saying "Poverty Breeds Crime". You can also look at it this way "Crime Breeds Poverty."
If you were going to start a business would you invest your money and time in the inner city of Chicago, where 44 people were shot over the last few days, or would you go into one of the more affluent suburbs where zero people have been shot?
If libs think slavery is the reason for 1. poverty, 2. education, 3. crime and 4. the illegitimacy rate in the inner city wouldn't those four categories have been worse a hundred years ago? The further we get away from the end of slavery the worse things get.
yeah, i agree it's complicated as to how poverty and crime relate to one another.
wile slavery is obviously a relevant historical factor, i'm not sure AA is so much about that today. as i understand it, it's more about the difference in treatment and opportunity between white people and black people and some other minorities.
yeah, i agree it's complicated as to how poverty and crime relate to one another.
wile slavery is obviously a relevant historical factor, i'm not sure AA is so much about that today. as i understand it, it's more about the difference in treatment and opportunity between white people and black people and some other minorities.
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
That's right Canovsp,, the voters of Michigan called for equal treatment of all individuals and no special treatment of groups.
This is the point that the SC made in their ruling ..Eliminating race preferences doesn’t take anything away from anyone....and you don’t have a constitutional right to special treatment because of the color of your skin..as stated back in 1997 by Jennifer Gratz (white woman ) who was denied admission to U-M and sued the school saying the admissions policies were racially biased...
I agree with what Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said after the ruling....colleges universities across the country should put the same intensity into recruiting academic brilliance as we do in recruiting athletic brilliance ....
Getting back to the legal aspect of the case. Do you think voters of a state have the right to vote on issues like this, or legalized drugs, or g-a-y marriage?
Remember, the voters of Michigan weren't voting on discriminating against a group of people, they voted on keeping everyone equal. EVERYONE EQUAL. They are true supporters of equality.
That's right Canovsp,, the voters of Michigan called for equal treatment of all individuals and no special treatment of groups.
This is the point that the SC made in their ruling ..Eliminating race preferences doesn’t take anything away from anyone....and you don’t have a constitutional right to special treatment because of the color of your skin..as stated back in 1997 by Jennifer Gratz (white woman ) who was denied admission to U-M and sued the school saying the admissions policies were racially biased...
I agree with what Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said after the ruling....colleges universities across the country should put the same intensity into recruiting academic brilliance as we do in recruiting athletic brilliance ....
To post #9 Is your concern that states can't be trusted to vote on issues, or that the result of said vote might be different than your bias- Because if there is only one correct result, regardless of how a majority feels- then there is no point in allowing a vote-
To post #9 Is your concern that states can't be trusted to vote on issues, or that the result of said vote might be different than your bias- Because if there is only one correct result, regardless of how a majority feels- then there is no point in allowing a vote-
Is your concern that states can't be trusted to vote on issues, or that
the result of said vote might be different than your bias-
both. on some issues, i think there is only one right answer if we are going to live in a civilized society. primarily discrimination issues. so, if a state's people are going to vote to disallow interracial marriage or allow businesses to turn away black people or happy people or disallow happy marriage, the federal government needs to step in.
Because if there is only one correct result, regardless of how a majority feels- then there is no point in allowing a vote-
i agree with this statement on some issues, as i mentioned.
Is your concern that states can't be trusted to vote on issues, or that
the result of said vote might be different than your bias-
both. on some issues, i think there is only one right answer if we are going to live in a civilized society. primarily discrimination issues. so, if a state's people are going to vote to disallow interracial marriage or allow businesses to turn away black people or happy people or disallow happy marriage, the federal government needs to step in.
Because if there is only one correct result, regardless of how a majority feels- then there is no point in allowing a vote-
i agree with this statement on some issues, as i mentioned.
Giving preferential treatment to someone because of their race, gender, sexual preference, or religion is not in the constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say that felons can't own firearms (in fact, doesn't the 2nd A give all that right?)
Doesn't the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech? Are there any restrictions on that?
Or do you just use the Constitution argument when it suits you?
The reality is that universities use preference all the time. Those with lesser intellect, like yourself, have been discriminated against for years in colleges. How do you feel about that?
Giving preferential treatment to someone because of their race, gender, sexual preference, or religion is not in the constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say that felons can't own firearms (in fact, doesn't the 2nd A give all that right?)
Doesn't the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech? Are there any restrictions on that?
Or do you just use the Constitution argument when it suits you?
The reality is that universities use preference all the time. Those with lesser intellect, like yourself, have been discriminated against for years in colleges. How do you feel about that?
I suppose what I was getting at was why the state even held the vote- and now that it is policy- the wrangling continues - It seems that it more shows the mindset of the voters than the actual "appropriate" result- As I understand it- the original vote was in essence condemning affirmative action- the SCOTUS decision is said to be only affirming a states right to hold that position; but aren't they, by default, affirming that position? Since affirmative action is a federal policy and Michigan essentially said "no"-
I suppose what I was getting at was why the state even held the vote- and now that it is policy- the wrangling continues - It seems that it more shows the mindset of the voters than the actual "appropriate" result- As I understand it- the original vote was in essence condemning affirmative action- the SCOTUS decision is said to be only affirming a states right to hold that position; but aren't they, by default, affirming that position? Since affirmative action is a federal policy and Michigan essentially said "no"-
i'm not sure about that. i didn't read up on this decision at all. i do agree that on most things, the people should decide by vote. our voting system is pretty fucked up, but what isn't around here. it's still better than the government mandating in most cases.
i'm not sure about that. i didn't read up on this decision at all. i do agree that on most things, the people should decide by vote. our voting system is pretty fucked up, but what isn't around here. it's still better than the government mandating in most cases.
They should eliminate the race and gender check boxes on all college applications. Admission based on merit with a certain minimum percentage of new students that qualify and are from low income families. I have no problem giving a helping hand to those kids that qualify academically and are from poor families. Those are the kids that need the most help to get in to college and break the cycle of poverty in their families. The kids that qualify from middle class and upper income families will have no problem getting into a college.
They should eliminate the race and gender check boxes on all college applications. Admission based on merit with a certain minimum percentage of new students that qualify and are from low income families. I have no problem giving a helping hand to those kids that qualify academically and are from poor families. Those are the kids that need the most help to get in to college and break the cycle of poverty in their families. The kids that qualify from middle class and upper income families will have no problem getting into a college.
They should eliminate the race and gender check boxes on all college applications. Admission based on merit with a certain minimum percentage of new students that qualify and are from low income families. I have no problem giving a helping hand to those kids that qualify academically and are from poor families. Those are the kids that need the most help to get in to college and break the cycle of poverty in their families. The kids that qualify from middle class and upper income families will have no problem getting into a college.
i think you are on to something. what class needs more protection: black people or poor people? on the one hand, you are going to have black kids who had money and good upbringings who will get an advantage over a poorer white kid who had a more difficult background. that shouldn't happen but is certainly a negative effect of AA.
They should eliminate the race and gender check boxes on all college applications. Admission based on merit with a certain minimum percentage of new students that qualify and are from low income families. I have no problem giving a helping hand to those kids that qualify academically and are from poor families. Those are the kids that need the most help to get in to college and break the cycle of poverty in their families. The kids that qualify from middle class and upper income families will have no problem getting into a college.
i think you are on to something. what class needs more protection: black people or poor people? on the one hand, you are going to have black kids who had money and good upbringings who will get an advantage over a poorer white kid who had a more difficult background. that shouldn't happen but is certainly a negative effect of AA.
I'll post more on this tonight. I will preface this by saying I am very much in favor of affirmative action, but I don't believe it can (or should) be mandated that any school MUST have it as a policy.
I'll post more on this tonight. I will preface this by saying I am very much in favor of affirmative action, but I don't believe it can (or should) be mandated that any school MUST have it as a policy.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.