⚖️What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action?⚖️

Equality was a founding principle of the country. We have drifted away from it in recent years. I'm for equality.

 

The End of Affirmative Action and the Long Road to Racial Equality Under the Law
After going through slavery, Jim Crow and affirmative action, has the Supreme Court finally brought us there?

https://archive.ph/L8mMi#selection-171.5-175.109

'“For too long,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, universities “have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”'

Americans are values driven, not race driven.

'Speaking at Gettysburg, Pa., Abraham Lincoln described us as a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”'

'It was our values that inspired President John F. Kennedy to usher in affirmative action in 1961. JFK made clear, however, that he held no affection for racial preferences when he said “race has no place in American life or law.”'

'This quote represented a rejection of Jim Crow but also of the kind of race-based policies that were being suggested to integrate “Negroes” into American society. It was JFK’s position that discrimination based on skin color was the major obstacle to overcome. Accordingly, he embraced a colorblind approach to race integration in America.'

'I strongly believe that the future of our country demands that we reject our endless pursuit of diversity and equity and claw our way back to our values and the vision embraced by Lincoln and JFK. Ending race-based affirmative action is an important first step in that mission. Over the past 20 years, voters in Arizona, California, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington backed ballot measures to prohibit racial discrimination—including preferential treatment for minorities. Officials in Idaho, Florida and New Hampshire did the same via legislation or executive order.'

'As one who was born in Jim Crow as a “colored” person and who has lived through all 62 years of affirmative action, my fear has been that this departure from one of America’s most fundamental values—over which we have fought a civil war—was becoming accepted as the preferred policy, rather than the exception, to our constitutional obligation of equal treatment for every person.'

'Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of equal rights and against race-based affirmative action in college admissions, it is realistic to anticipate some pushback. Change after 60 years rarely comes easy. For my part, and that of the majority who believe in the ideal that has guided America since its inception, this is a time to rejoice, as America will come closer to living in accordance with its creed.'

Now ALL have an equal opportunity to show their merit and the content of their character, in college admissions.

 

well....3/5s equality anyway

 

Heh, well aware...

 

You say that as if that wasn't always the case......

As if disadvantaged groups didn't always have equal opportunity and the federal govt had to remedy that with some affirmative action policies or something......


Pffff.........

 

OK well if you think that US colleges are hotbeds of racism against black people and won't admit black people without some sort of race based affirmative action I don't know what to tell you. There should be at least a couple of lawsuits or examples of that if it were true, but the idea you think that's likely shows a real disconnection.

 

Who said anything about 'hotbeds of racism'? Why is it either 0 or 100?

And why would there be lawsuits when AA was a policy? Theoretically they wouldn't happen until AFTER it is repealed. If not, there we go. I'll be very curious to see the racial makeup of these institutions in 5-10 years tho. That'll be the telling point more then anything else.

 

Do tell us Mikey, why do you think the federal government saw the need to begin affirmative action policies for racial minorities, women, the disabled and veterans?

What would prompt them to want to do this in the first place?

Signed by President Johnson that early autumn Friday in 1965, Executive Order 11246 became a key landmark in a series of federal actions aimed at ending racial, religious and ethnic discrimination, an effort that dated back to the anxious days before the U.S. was thrust into World War II.

Today, Executive Order 11246, as amended and further strengthened over the years, remains a major safeguard, protecting the rights of workers employed by federal contractors—approximately one–fifth of the entire U.S. labor force—to remain free from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin…and opening the doors of opportunity through its affirmative action provisions.

Then came for disabilities and vets....

"To comply with the following laws. Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), as amended, require federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to disability or status. VEVRAA covers “special disabled” veterans, Vietnam era veterans, recently separated veterans, and any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized

So during two different decades, the federal government deemed it necessary to implement these policies for four different groups.

Why?

 

Relax, the Supreme Court gave enough loopholes that the racial make up of Universities will be pretty much the same as they have been.

 

Wow you are still at it. Was this decision about "women, the disabled and veterans?"

 

More clarity, please.

 

There was no need for affirmative action, correct? I mean, equal opportunity was always there for racial minorities, women vets and the disabled. So what was the big fuss about?

 

Was this case about affirmative action or not? You could just say you support it for the other groups and not racial minorities. It's not that hard.

 

If you look at post #133, there's an obvious reason he won't address the other groups that AA covers as he views AA (which is warped and silly), but even so, he doesn't want to touch it and it's clear Why.

 

Which seems to really irk you for some reason.........

Let me guess........


Too much color?

 

@Matt84 This case is about equal treatment under the law. Every act of unfair preference, toward one, is paid for by an equal act of unfair discrimination, against another.

In this case it was documented that 'Harvard routinely marked down Asian Americans who it had not even invited for interview on things such as “character traits.”'

'By marking them down in such a way Harvard could then dismiss the application as not being up to standards. The applicant had been racially judged. Along clearly racist criteria. By an institution claiming to be acting in the name of “anti-racism.” Over the course of a decade the case ended up in the Supreme Court which yesterday issued its verdict. In a 6-3 judgment, the Court said that universities like Harvard are in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.'

Now dim bribed Joe, who is better at collecting graft than thinking, is calling for legislation to overturn this, not recognizing that it rests on the constitution, not legislative law.



'As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his deciding opinion: “The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.'

“Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

'Not just Harvard but almost every university in the country has been' engaging in unconstitutional activity for years.



'The most “progressive” companies in America — like Google and Facebook — have all been engaged in the same activities as Harvard. Instead of focusing purely on merit, everything in this country has ended up being about the identity of the person not their competency. So it is fitting that one of the justices who did not agree with the judgement was the most recent appointee to the court — Ketanji Brown Jackson.'

'She disagreed with the other justices — especially Justice Clarence Thomas – in unusually strong language. Justice Jackson might be opposed to the idea of color-blind attitudes in America, because she is where she is today because of her sex and the color of her skin. When President Biden had the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice he announced straight away that he wanted to appoint a black woman to the court. He did not say that he wanted to appoint the best possible justice — be they white, black, Asian, male, female or anything else. He specifically said that he wanted a black woman. And that is how Ketanji Brown Jackson got where she is.'

'The Supreme Court has seen sense. The racism of the “anti-racists” has been exposed for what it is: unconstitutional and un-American.'

https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-was-an-injustice-to-people-of-all-races/

 

This thread and this court case is about racial discrimination, and how that is illegal.

I've posted that maybe...a dozen times to you in the past two days and yet you keep bringing up women and vets, and who knows who else, who isn't also mentioned in this court case. Could you admit that you are over your head and have no way of discussing this issue other than by derailing the thread on some "other groups" canard?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...come-to-an-end.611599/page-16#post-1074300955

 

Like I said, it's not that hard. It's okay for some and not others. Not really hard to say at all.

 

I would think it's not that hard, but you seem to be really struggling over this racial discrimination thing. I figure if after the past two days you haven't got it you are not going to suddenly understand this topic now.

 

Nope, just waiting for you to admit what you're not comfortable admitting.

 

In recent years? You do remember women have only had the vote for a little more than 100 years, right?

 

I think you realize the people you're talking to on here now......

 

Yea,

@Lil Mike, Mikey feels that way too. This country has always had an environment for equal opportunity. Those stupid 13th and 19th amendments, little dumb civil rights movements, stupid voting rights act, stupid affirmative action, what was all that needed for? We've always been equal in this country and in the eyes of gaaawd.......

 

The personality thing is real. But it's not just personality, it's also culture. In medicine the problem is that they often lack english proficiency and/or social skills for our culture, and so patients feel unsatisfied with the bedside manner even if the persons academic/clinical skills are quite high. This isn't against their culture or ethnicity - I am sure I would have even more trouble if I tried to go to a school in their country of origin, but it is an issue. Even for pathologists/radiologists, who have less/no patient interaction, this communication issue can interfere with their ability to help surgeons/oncologists in tumor board discussions and in their reports. Ability to work with people within the culture served is an especially big thing in medicine, but would certainly have an impact on an admissions committee for a more general educational place as well. Test scores aren't everything, as we are a cooperative species.

Trouble is, then the evaluation is very subjective, and things like subconscious racism and nepotism could be disguised as merit-based decisions.