Discriminations

If you allow present-day discrimination to "correct" discrimination in the past, then does that mean that you have to have discriminatory programs in the future to correct the discrimination that you are doing in the present day? I'm dizzy.

Taking race into account, as many schools and businesses do in hiring and admissions, is not preferential treatment. Preferential treatment is a term that "Opportunity Opponents" (like it? I just made that one up, but I think I'll use it more in the future) like to throw around to cast opportunity in a negative light. Minorities are not "preferred" in admissions and hiring. There is no admissions policy that says, "we prefer Latinos over whites and Asians."

And so-called "preferential treatment" or opportunity for one group is not necessarily discrimination against all other groups as John claims in this post. Opening up greater access to opportunity for Blacks or women or Muslims does not necessarily diminish opportunity for other groups, particularly when other groups have been shown to have had greater access to opportunity in the past. Giving women greater access to employment opportunity, for example, does not unfairly diminsh men's opportunities for employment.

Finally supporters of opportunity (or as my opponents would say, race preferentialists) are not opponents of equal treatment, but we may not agree with everyone being treated equally all the time [In other words, to say that there are exceptions to a rule of equal treatment is not the same thing as being OPPOSED to equal treatment]. Supporters of opportunity view affirmative action and consideration of race/ethnicity/sex as a means of achieving a more fair and just society. Surely you do not think that men and women should be treated equally in combat situations. Nor should wheelchair users be treated equally to those who ambulate. These are both examples of unequal treatment, but they are both fair.

Taking race into account, as many schools and businesses do in hiring and admissions, is not preferential treatment.

And what do you think those schools and businesses do when they “take race into account”? Look at each and say, “Hmm, that’s interesting,” and then move on?

Hull, you’re obviously a bright guy, and thus I find the fact that you attempt (unsuccessfully) to deny that preferential treatment is preferential treatment and that you can argue with what I assume is a straight face (though I can’t see it from here) that “Minorities are not ‘preferred’ in admissions and hiring” to be highly revealing of the difficulty your side of this debate has in coming up with good arguments.

Here’s a simple test: if a college lowered its requirements for admission to include a higher percentage of whites (which, by the way, the University of California could justify by pointing out that they are “underrepresented” among the students at Berkeley and UCLA, as they are), with the result that a significant number of black and Hispanic applicants with higher qualifications than many admitted whites were excluded, would you still maintain that such a policy did not “prefer” whites?

What you’re really arguing, whether you like to admit it or not, is that some discrimination on the basis of race is justified and some is not. That argument, while not persuasive to me, at least has the virtue of being coherent. Arguing that the discrimination you like is not discrimination is sorely lacking in that virtue.

The cast of characters in the Duke lacrosse case is the answer to Hull's nonsense.

Go over to Durham in Wonderland (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) and discover just what the race and sex quota system is producing. The myth is that we're just opening up opportunities.

The reality is that we are promoting incompetents and illiterates to positions of responsibility in elite universities. Some of those illiterates teach, believe it or not, in English literature departments.

Hull, you are kidding yourself. If a black person is ambulatory, that person is getting preference over a competent white. Underneath all the rhetoric, what we are really doing is handing over responsibility to incompetents.

If you, Hull, are so concerned about correcting the past, take up missionary work or give up your job to a deserving minority. If you are not willing to do this, I suggest silence. Quit offering up other people as sacrifices for your pious ideals.

Surely you do not think that men and women should be treated equally in combat situations. Nor should wheelchair users be treated equally to those who ambulate. These are both examples of unequal treatment, but they are both fair.

These people are treated unequally in certain respects because they are unequal in certain respects. In terms of, e.g., voting, they are equal. But in terms of physical skills, they are not. (To the extent they are -- e.g., a physically fit woman and a physically unfit man -- I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated equally.) Unless you mean to suggest that blacks are inferior to whites (or vice versa) these analogies simply have no merit.

(Note further that unlike skin color, being in a wheelchair is an individual characteristic, not a group characteristic.)

"Here’s a simple test: if a college lowered its requirements for admission to include a higher percentage of whites . . . with the result that a significant number of black and Hispanic applicants with higher qualifications than many admitted whites were excluded, would you still maintain that such a policy did not “prefer” whites?"

Yes.

The hypothetical policy says nothing explicitly about which race is "preferred." I take issue with the language you use to frame the argument. "Preferred race" and "race preference" are not terms admissions and hiring people use. These are terms you and your opportunity opponent cohorts use to frame the argument and cast greater opportunity in a negative light.

Invidious discrimination is never justified. Some discrimination that is not invidious, is, however, acceptable in certain circumstances. I'm not sure why you opponents of opportunity cannot see this.

"These people are treated unequally in certain respects because they are unequal in certain respects."

So then you, like me, believe that in some situations it is not fair to treat everyone "equally." And indeed it is more fair to treat people unequally in many situations, like combat. It is certainly unfair to men that women don't have equal responsibility to fight, but most people seem to think this is fair. Good to have you on our team.

“Preferred race” and “race preference” are not terms admissions and hiring people use. These are terms you and your opportunity opponent cohorts use to frame the argument and cast greater opportunity in a negative light.
We do that because the “opportunity” you defend is the direct result of discriminating against those denied that opportunity on the basis of their race. I’m sure that, agreeing with your logic and your terminology, there were many Southern whites (actually, I knew many of them) who objected to terms like “segregation” and “Jim Crow” for what were only “opportunity programs” for whites.

Invidious discrimination is never justified. Some discrimination that is not invidious, is, however, acceptable in certain circumstances. I'm not sure why you opponents of opportunity cannot see this.

Now this is more like it. This makes sense. All you are doing here is saying that the racial discrimination of which you approve is not “invidious.” As you know, I find this a weak and unpersuasive argument; all it means is that you approve of your own motives for discriminating. But it is at least coherent, and does suffer the silliness of the argument that giving preferences to people because of their race is not preferential treatment.

That latter argument, in fact, is so silly that I hope you and your colleagues keep making it.

John,

Almost every time I read someone from the African-American community try to defend racial preferences and racial justification I think of two things.

First, I find it how odd that people who use Brown V Board of Education so bash whites at every opprotuhnity will go to extremes to defend separate and unequal. The Supreme court has been fairly consistent in ruling that racial separate classes, school, dorms, drinking foundation, and admissions processes, that separate is inherently unconstitutional. Yes, everyone from the NAACP to the CBC will propose, maintain, and defend separate and unequal programs.

The second thing I always thing of is the Shannon Faulkner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Faulkner. When she changed her college application from female to male she was admitted. I think every hiring program. college program, and school program should face the same test. Any schools who would deny admission to a white with a certain GAP, SAT score, and resume while admitting a black student with the same resume and achievement is blatantly discriminating and violating individual student rights without due process.

Superdestroyer - The Law allows discrimination by race or gender based upon a compelling governmental interest - The Law does mean that White European-Americans can experience race or gender based discrimination

Freeman,

I have never found the compelling interest phrase in the constitution. It must be in that special constitution that says that free speech stops when a minority's feeling are hurt. Or maybe that constitution what says that freedon of association does not really exist.

Compelling interest is just a concept that activist judges created to do what they knew was not allowed by the constitution.

also, the courts have never really permitted groups guilt or group benefit to be a compelling interest.

I guess they teach a different constituion at HBCU's.

Superdestroyer - Reducing the effects of Sexism against Women currently & in the past & Reducing the effects of Racism against People of Color currently & in the past is a compelling governmental interest -
Historically Black University Howard is a great legal institution - it educated the 1st Black Afrikan US Supreme Court Justice Honorable Thurgood Marshall appointed in 1967
Black Afrikans were not appointed earlier because of racism against Black Afrikans
Finally it was not until the 1960s that Black Afrikans were allowed to attend State public universities in the South because of racism against Black Afrikans

SuperD:

'Compelling interest' is not in the constitution.

True.

On other the other hand it is not merely a whim of activist judges either.

Courts have always held, in this nation and elsewhere, that the government has a right to remain government.

Compelling interest is accepted when a matter is crucial or vital. In essence, when effective government would not be possible otherwise. Time is usually a factor.

To modify an old joke: CI is not about getting it right, it is about getting it right now.

e.g. war, hurricanes, riots, burning apartments, contagion.

But in my view the courts and law sometimes take it too far.

Instead of saying AA is a 'compelling interest' it would be better to say it is a 'reasonable interest' which the state can promote but not at any cost.

That is not quibbling. Words count. Which is why rascals so often want to redefine them.

K,

The Bakke decision was almost 30 years ago. That is more than enough time for the pro-quota gorups to amend the constitution to allow separate and unequal treatment. They do not bother because activist judges give them exactly what they want without ever having to pass a law or amend the constitution.

The same thing is achieved with consent decrees. Activist sue and then the legal system mandates how the government will operate (See busing or HUD housing).

The will of the majority is routinely ignored by politicians and judges who will never personnaly be impacted by their rulings.

Under the docrtine of "protected classes" certain defined groups of society need special protection by the courts from the tyranny of the majority - by definition protected classes can not create political pressure to have the political system respond to their basic needs

SuperD:

Yes, many people are disgusted by the trend of the judiciary to decide cases based upon what they want.

I wasn't addressing that.

My remarks were about 'compelling interest' and what it actually means.

CI is the highest power of the state and lets it do damn near anything. That is why it is so severely inspected and almost never used except for short times in disasters.

Saying AA is a compelling interest is a misuse of the power. AA is a desire. Not all desires are good policy and not all are bad.

If preferences are truly a CI then how do CA and MI function after they were banned?

An good illustration of CI - and its limits - was in New Orleans. Mayor Nagin simply ordered seizure of all firearms several days after Katrina had passed.

That made no sense. There was little or no unrest and adequate troops and police were in the city.

The order was quashed.

John writes:

>>>"The only way defenders of racial preference can defend it in public is to misrepresent it. The more people understand what racial preference entails, the more they oppose it."

I've defended it here in public for years. I don't "misrepresent it". In fact, if anything, I'm extremely clear about what it is.
What I HAVE noticed about anti-affirmative action types is their ability to constrict the definition of the term "racial preferences" to mean ONLY "state-sponsored advantages that don't favor white, non-latino males."

Any "racial preferences" (the overwhelming preponderence of American History and Society) that benefits white, non-latino males are trivilized, disregarded or rendered as "constitutionally allowed freedom of association."

Now, I can fully understand WHY many privileged white, non-latino males (and those non-whites on the payroll of said white, non-latino males) would fight tooth and nail to PRESERVE their systematic advantages.

I can also fully understand WHY privileged white, non-latino males (and those non-whites on the payroll of said white, non-latino males) would fight tooth and nail to DESTROY any advantages someone NOT IN THEIR GROUP might receive to maintain the dominance of the entrenched white male power structure.

What I don't understand is WHY many anti-affirmative action types think they're tricking conscious people by trying to frame this as an issue of fairness. Life isn't fair, and neither is America, especially in regards to RACE.

I'll freely admit the anti-affirmative type mantra of "I'll keep my edge and while making it harder for 'you people'" probably plays well in the homogenized soccer-mom suburbs and the ethnically-challenged rural hinterlands. There's an eager audience for such campaigns, and the Jennifer Gratz "tears for white justice" movement proved.

Call it what it is, folks.
As Paul Simon once said...

"Who do...Who do you think you're fooling?"

--Cobra

Michigan reports that after Ban on Affirmative Action - enrollment of People of Color decreased at elite universities & Wayne County Chief Judge after changing Court system said with Affirmative Action ban no duty to insure certain level of employees that represent the community's ethnicity or gender

John,

In all fairness to Ramey, his arguments are clear and cogent, and actually among the cleanest I've seen. In the preferentialist world-view, many really are unwilling to admit preference and discrimination are the same (the Supreme Court has ruled that, but allows discrimination by the state where there is compelling interest). As such, they draw a distinction because they must to avoid their own cognitive dissonance - so Ramey's argument isn't surprising (it's the first time I've seen the "multiple object" argument used precisely this way, previously, in Florida, the objects that were allegedly different were "contracting" versus "education" versus "hiring", requiring 3 separate petitions (the final total needed was 6 petitions, each of the three had another distinction, maybe this one, actually).

Essentially, Ramey's argument is not "frivolous," although I agree its not a winner (even if it were, CCRI could merely rewrite the language to "define" discrimination to include preference, much like the partial-birth definition petitions, making it one object).

His second argument that preferential treatment carries a "bad connotation," is true. It does. He's right. I don't know that digs his legal hole deeper - its a real admission of the situation. His legal argument, framed that way, is also true - he's arguing that different language would be more neutral (obviously, both sides want language that benefits them). I don't see anything "misrepresented" here - it's the standard (perhaps softer than standard) spin from the left, by a lawyer that appears to be nowhere nearly as frivolous as say BAMN lawyers were. His legal arguments aren't persuasive, but they aren't on the edge either.

Chet - I understand that “many really are unwilling to admit preference and discrimination are the same,” but all that means is that they should vote against CCRI, not that Ramey’s objection to the language makes any sense. Denying that preferring some individuals over others solely because of their race is discrimination simply makes no sense. What does make sense is to say that some racial discrimination is good and some is bad. People who believe that have every right to vote against CCRI, but they don’t have a right to say that words don’t mean what they mean.

Ditto about “preferential treatment” having a “bad connotation.” Sure it does, but that doesn’t justify saying that you can’t use the words “preferential treatment” in an initiative whose purpose is to bar preferential treatment.

I know that the preferentialists would prefer us to say that we’re trying to outlaw “affirmative action” -- what other recommendation could they make? -- but, as you know, that is hardly an improvement. Pretty soon they’ll be saying we can’t say we’re defending “civil rights” when we set about banning racial discrimination.

Oh, wait....

John - Banning Affirmative Action does not ban Racial Discrimination for all People - but only for White European-American Males - society's most powerful group -
Banning Affirmative Action increases Sexism against Women
But it is consistent under a White European-American Male Supremacist view - People of Color are considered subhumans

Just to review:
Edward Ramsey (and others) argue that preferential treatment and discrimination are not the same thing. You, John disagree saying that, no preferential treatment and discrimination ARE the same thing. And your reasoning is, they are the same . . . because . . . saying otherwise makes no sense?

You say, "The only way defenders of racial preference can defend it in public is to misrepresent it."

That's exactly what we're saying about you. The only way "opponents of opportunity"© can defend their position is by misrepresenting it: "Civil Rights Initiative"; "Race Preference"; "Defenders of race discrimination"; these are just terms to frame the argument in your favor.

No. You need to review again.

Here's why I say denying that preferential treatment is discrimination. Preferential treatment is giving a benefit to some and a burden to others on the basis of race. What about that fact do you not understand?

To deny that preferring some on the basis of their race, with the inescapable corollary that others are handicapped by their race, literally makes no sense. I don't understand why preferentialists object to an accurate description of what they support. Well, that's not quite true; I do understand. The more people understant what preferential treatment is, the more they oppose it.

Thus, in my view, as I've said, reasonably people can support racial discrimination some times and oppose it other times, which is what preferentialists do. Reasonable people who speak English cannot deny, or cannot reasonably deny, that favoring and disfavoring people on the basis of race is racial discrimination.

Hull -- Isn't a more fundamental difference between opponents and proponents of preferences not just wording, but group versus individual orientation?

Proponents want to be fair to groups while opponents want to be fair to individuals. It is comparing apples to oranges.

Civil rights are granted to individuals and not to groups. Individuals are real and tangible while groups are abstractions invented for convenience of discussion. Groups are not just a scaled-up version of individuals. The sum of individual equality is not group equality. It is embracing the logical 'fallacy of division' to conclude that equalizing group results confers equality to all individual members of these groups.

Unfortunately, we have to choose either fairness to individuals or fairness to groups. I'll take the former.

"Preferential treatment is giving a benefit to some and a burden to others on the basis of race."

What benefits and burdens are bestowed on the basis of race? Who is preferred?

When are people favored or disfavored?

What benefits and burdens are bestowed on the basis of race? Who is preferred?

When are people favored or disfavored?

Do you really regard these as serious questions, or are you just trying to get me to waste my time stating the obvious?

Eddy - you are using deception - the State of Michigan legislature said that Michigan Prisoners had no civil rights - The State of Michigan said a group of people had no civil rights - The Republican Michigan Attorney General is currently appealing the ruling that the group of people Michigan prisoners DO HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS
Rosa Parks did not risk her life so that she as an individual could sit anywhere she wanted on a public bus - but that Black Afrikans as a group could sit anywhere they wanted on public buses
Dred Scott 1857 US Supreme Court case says Black Afrikans slave or free have no rights in the US that the White European-American is bound to respect - a group of people