Roberts’s opposition to racial quotas brands him as conservative partisan, say liberals.
Roberts’ criticism of racial “quotas” in some documents from his work as a White House lawyer has alarmed civil rights groups and some Democrats, who say he may be a partisan for conservative causes.
I hope the news is spread far and wide that “civil rights groups and some Democrats” believe that opposition to racial quotas is a conservative cause.
Democrats have always hidden behind the euphemisms “equal opportunity”, “inclusion”, “diversity”, et al.
The GOP has to be more effective in communicating to the American public that these are just synonyms for “quotas” and “racial and gender preferences.” Up to now, the Republicans have done a terrible job at this.
It depends what demographic you’re trying to pitch to, and what your constituents are made up of.
I don’t have to drag Ken Mehlman in here again, do I?
–Cobra
I love the scare quotes around “quota”.
Roberts’ criticism of racial “quotas” in some documents …
Even people who want quotas always pretend they don’t want quota.
Dom
Quotas have a way of biting people on the ass. Anyone who gets in under a quota bears the stigma of being “A quota candidate.” Who after all wants a doctor that was an affirmative action candidate.
Thomas Jackson writes:
>>>”Anyone who gets in under a quota bears the stigma of being “A quota candidate.” Who after all wants a doctor that was an affirmative action candidate.”
How does one identify an “affirmative action doctor?”
–Cobra
How does one identify an “affirmative action doctor?” Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? If there weren’t any racial preferences… er… I mean racial quotas… er… I mean “affirmative action”, then there would be no need to posit whether a doctor was a doctor because of his merits or because of something other than his merits despite his lack of merits.
ELC writes:
Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? If there weren’t any racial preferences… er… I mean racial quotas… er… I mean “affirmative action”, then there would be no need to posit whether a doctor was a doctor because of his merits or because of something other than his merits despite his lack of merits.”
That didn’t answer my question. Your statement conflates Affirmative Action with racial preferences and quotas, when the concept also applies to gender, ethnicity and economic status.
Again, How does one indentify an Affirmative Action doctor?
–Cobra
Waiting for Cobra to figure this one out on his own. tap, tap, tap…
>>Again, How does one indentify an Affirmative Action doctor?
–Cobra
Well, one way would be to have the grieving widow (or widower) point to the defense table at the malpractice trial and say, “That’s him (or her). His (or her) incompetence killed my husband (or wife).”
Cicero writes:
>>>Well, one way would be to have the grieving widow (or widower) point to the defense table at the malpractice trial and say, “That’s him (or her). His (or her) incompetence killed my husband (or wife).”
Is the trial presided by an “affirmative action judge?”, is the plaintiff and defendant represented by “affirmative action lawyers?” Is the jury pool filled with “affirmative action recipients?”
You REALLY have to dig deep on this one, Cicero.
–Cobra
I had thought that Cobra’s point would be that, on a strictly individual basis (so passe, I know), it would be difficult to distinguish an “affirmative action doctor” from a non-AA doctor. That is absolutely true, unless one asked and who would admit to it?
The actual way the dilemma is resolved for the discriminating medical (or legal, et al) consumer would be to avoid those identity groups who benefit from AA, thereby assuring that, at least by percentage, the consumer is more likely to receive the best care.
This is undoubtedly unfair to the practitioner in the identified group who actually is well qualified, perhaps even top of his class, but what else can a consumer do? For those willing to roll the dice for the outcome of their medical or legal problems, AA will not be an issue. (Unless they want to protest against discriminatory admissions and hiring practices by use of the boycott, a much praised tactic as Jessie Jackson has shown.)