Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The Supreme Court decided to allow Michigan's voter approved ban on affirmative action yesterday. Naturally, the one Justice that was actually helped by affirmative action had something to say about that   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 70
    More: Interesting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, voters approved, Supreme Court, Michigan  
•       •       •

1042 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 12:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 11:22:56 AM  
Clarence Thomas dissented?
 
2014-04-23 11:36:29 AM  
They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..
 
2014-04-23 11:40:39 AM  

ArkAngel: They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..


If you read her dissent, it takes some mental gymnastics, but she makes an impassioned, reasoned argument. I disagree with it, but it's not without some points. I just don't think it's a compelling enough argument that a law that says "we are not going to discriminate" discriminates.
 
2014-04-23 11:53:17 AM  

ArkAngel: They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..


I don't disagree.  Congress could exercise its Section 5 authority to prevent states from passing such amendments but in the absence of that, states can pass this sort of amendment.  Roberts however is delusional in his retort to the dissent.  He basically argues that there would be no racism if there wasn't racial preferencing.
 
2014-04-23 11:58:32 AM  

BritneysSpeculum: ArkAngel: They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..

I don't disagree.  Congress could exercise its Section 5 authority to prevent states from passing such amendments but in the absence of that, states can pass this sort of amendment.  Roberts however is delusional in his retort to the dissent.  He basically argues that there would be no racism if there wasn't racial preferencing.


So you mean if we aren't allow to judge by the color of skin, we will instead judge by content of character? You don't say? Tell me more...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-23 12:07:52 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: So you mean if we aren't allow to judge by the color of skin, we will instead judge by content of character? You don't say? Tell me more...


Yeah because that is exactly what your average Republican wants to do:
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-23 12:25:28 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?


He should just change his first name to Uncle.
 
2014-04-23 12:57:25 PM  

Nabb1: If you read her dissent, it takes some mental gymnastics, but she makes an impassioned, reasoned argument. I disagree with it, but it's not without some points. I just don't think it's a compelling enough argument that a law that says "we are not going to discriminate" discriminates.


I guess I don't understand this argument at all. I mean, we all know that many, many Jim Crow laws were 100% facially non-discriminatory. Even if those laws had said "and must be enforced exactly equally among whites and blacks", they'd still be obviously evil and racist.

Facially pretending race doesn't exist is not the answer to racism.
 
2014-04-23 12:58:38 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?


BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.
 
2014-04-23 12:59:11 PM  
I have been called a fascist on this board, but I support Affirmative Action.  Even with it, there is a ridiculously small number of blacks in prestigious universities and removing AA will likely stamp out their presence altogether and the racial divide, at least between blacks and other races, will become larger.
 
2014-04-23 01:00:57 PM  
No right minded citizen should ever attend a university in that racist state.
 
2014-04-23 01:04:06 PM  

Nabb1: ArkAngel: They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..

If you read her dissent, it takes some mental gymnastics, but she makes an impassioned, reasoned argument. I disagree with it, but it's not without some points. I just don't think it's a compelling enough argument that a law that says "we are not going to discriminate" discriminates.


If you read her dissent, you realize that it would effectively prohibit states from rearranging any power post-enactment of the 14th amendment if the rearrangement would impact race and have the effect of pushing the decision making power up the chain.  So if that's "reasoned," I guess you're right.

But I certainly agree on the gymnastics, as those are absolutely necessary to conclude that an amendment prohibits compliance with what its text requires.
 
2014-04-23 01:06:14 PM  

Garet Garrett: If you read her dissent, you realize that it would effectively prohibit states from rearranging any power post-enactment of the 14th amendment if the rearrangement would impact race and have the effect of pushing the decision making power up the chain.


Can you rephrase this? I genuinely can't understand this sentence. It's a little dense.
 
2014-04-23 01:11:11 PM  
I think I would have ruled that way too.

Remember the state banning Affirmative Action is not even close to the same thing as saying Affirmative Action is unconstitutional or Affirmative Action is bad.

The only way you could rightfully say they could not do this is if you think banning affirmative action is discriminatory. I don't think you can say it is. But that also doesn't mean that Affirmative Action is discriminatory.

Just because a state passes a law you don't agree with or you believe is "bad" doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I didn't read in detail what Sotomayor but what I get is she said "Well it's helpful so it shouldn't be banned" but that's BS just because you think it's helpful or not is not for the court to decide. The court rules on if it's legal or not.
 
2014-04-23 01:12:40 PM  

DrBenway: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.


You might want to check your facts.  When Thomas went to law school, Affirmative Action consisted pretty much of what the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.

But of course, you don't actually want to check your facts.
 
2014-04-23 01:12:50 PM  

Corvus: The only way you could rightfully say they could not do this is if you think banning affirmative action is discriminatory. I don't think you can say it is. But that also doesn't mean that Affirmative Action is discriminatory.


I actually don't think most of us have a problem with the outcome of the decision; I'm certainly not that upset at it. But the logic used in writing is...incredibly bad. It reads like something a 19 year old Reddit user would conjur up about race relations.
 
2014-04-23 01:18:53 PM  

Garet Garrett: DrBenway: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.

You might want to check your facts.  When Thomas went to law school, Affirmative Action consisted pretty much of what the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.

But of course, you don't actually want to check your facts.


So then, Justice Thomas hasn't said that affirmative action devalued his Yale law degree?
 
2014-04-23 01:19:18 PM  
It has zero to do with AA.
The case was about States rights to enact laws.  They have that right, which the ruling upheld.
It never should have gotten to them in the first place, but whatever.

/ AA is racist.
// Ignoring race actually is the way you make racism vanish.
 
2014-04-23 01:19:57 PM  
To be fair, I think affirmative action is often not the best way to redress racial inequality - but I think African Americans descended from slaves are all owed 40 acres and a mule.

Seriously, though, something needs to be done. Affirmative action is a blunt instrument that has its uses but doesn't help address a lot of the issues. Like managers not even calling qualified applicants who have a "black" name.

If we take this tool out of the box, we better replace it with something even better. Like reparations to fix the massive wealth gap, or something equally powerful.
 
2014-04-23 01:20:16 PM  

DamnYankees: Corvus: The only way you could rightfully say they could not do this is if you think banning affirmative action is discriminatory. I don't think you can say it is. But that also doesn't mean that Affirmative Action is discriminatory.

I actually don't think most of us have a problem with the outcome of the decision; I'm certainly not that upset at it. But the logic used in writing is...incredibly bad. It reads like something a 19 year old Reddit user would conjur up about race relations.


I didn't read any comments at first. Sometimes I do that so that my comment won't be influenced. After I went back I was pretty surprised how many people also on the left here have the same opinion as me.

I heard the host on NPR yesterday and she was clueless about it. She seemed to not be able to get her head around that this ruling isn't the same as saying "All affirmative action is discriminatory". It was frustrating to listen to.
 
2014-04-23 01:20:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: If you read her dissent, you realize that it would effectively prohibit states from rearranging any power post-enactment of the 14th amendment if the rearrangement would impact race and have the effect of pushing the decision making power up the chain.

Can you rephrase this? I genuinely can't understand this sentence. It's a little dense.


Yeah, no doubt.  She says that the political process doctrine means that states can adopt changes like the one the Michigan voters approved, but that the states are constrained from doing so in particular ways.  Specifically, they can't change the decision maker for a race-impacting decision "up the chain" (so to speak) once a particular entity has been vested with that decision.  So she says it would've been fine for the regents in Michigan (who adopted race-based admission standards) to adopt race-neutral standards, but neither the legislature nor the people, by a plebiscite, can make that change.  Why?  She offers nothing but circular, conclusion-driven explanations.

I've just taken her arguments to their logical extension.  If there was a board that, in 1863, held responsibilities for regulations that impact race issues, states would be prohibited from removing those responsibilities from that entity, otherwise they're changing the rules "in the middle of the game."  She articulated no limiting principle on this issue.  And it makes her dissent impassioned nonsense, I'm afraid.
 
2014-04-23 01:22:51 PM  

Garet Garrett: Specifically, they can't change the decision maker for a race-impacting decision "up the chain" (so to speak) once a particular entity has been vested with that decision.  So she says it would've been fine for the regents in Michigan (who adopted race-based admission standards) to adopt race-neutral standards, but neither the legislature nor the people, by a plebiscite, can make that change.  Why?  She offers nothing but circular, conclusion-driven explanations.


Interesting. I haven't read her dissent in full, only snippets. If you know where she says this, that'd be great so I can take a look.
 
2014-04-23 01:28:51 PM  
The court didn't rule on the validity of AA, only on the validity of an appellate court's ability to strike down a constitutional amendment, I believe. sheesh.
 
2014-04-23 01:28:58 PM  

DrBenway: Garet Garrett: DrBenway: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.

You might want to check your facts.  When Thomas went to law school, Affirmative Action consisted pretty much of what the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.

But of course, you don't actually want to check your facts.

So then, Justice Thomas hasn't said that affirmative action devalued his Yale law degree?


Oh, no doubt AA has horribly undermined the achievements of its supposed beneficiaries, and even those whose achievements are simply assumed by the ignorant to have gotten where they are as a result of AA.  I'm just rejecting the suggestion, which you endorsed, that he got where he was as a result of what we now think of as AA - that is, positive-discrimination, race-based admissions.

Maybe if you worked as hard as he has over the years, you wouldn't be jealous and spiteful.
 
2014-04-23 01:32:24 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: So you mean if we aren't allow to judge by the color of skin, we will instead judge by content of character? You don't say? Tell me more...


You know, if you knew more about Dr. King than one quote, you'd know he specifically advocated for racial quotas. Dumbass.
 
2014-04-23 01:32:54 PM  

Garet Garrett: Oh, no doubt AA has horribly undermined the achievements of its supposed beneficiaries, and even those whose achievements are simply assumed by the ignorant to have gotten where they are as a result of AA.


I've never seen any actual evidence of this. This seems like one of those post-hoc arguments made by people who first decided they are against AA (for whatever reason, some good some bad) and then searching for additional reasons to oppose it. I mean, who except hardcore conservatives (ie people who hate him anyways) look at Obama and think less of him because he benefited from AA? Is there anyone?
 
2014-04-23 01:33:17 PM  
I've (and it horrifies me to say this) have to agree with Scalia and crew on this.  Affirmative action for minorities in higher education is an idea whose time has passed.

What we need now is affirmative action based on class.  Theo Huxstable doesn't need help getting into college, but some kid with broke-ass parents in a shiatty high school needs a hand.
 
2014-04-23 01:34:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: Specifically, they can't change the decision maker for a race-impacting decision "up the chain" (so to speak) once a particular entity has been vested with that decision.  So she says it would've been fine for the regents in Michigan (who adopted race-based admission standards) to adopt race-neutral standards, but neither the legislature nor the people, by a plebiscite, can make that change.  Why?  She offers nothing but circular, conclusion-driven explanations.

Interesting. I haven't read her dissent in full, only snippets. If you know where she says this, that'd be great so I can take a look.


Hard to distill, but here's a pithy passage on p 29:

There is no question, then, that the elected boards in Michigan had the power to eliminate or adopt racesensitive admissions policies prior to §26. There is also no question that §26 worked an impermissible reordering of the political process; it removed that power from the elected boards and placed it instead at a higher level of the political process in Michigan. See supra, at 17-22. This case is no different from Hunter and Seattle in that respect. Just as in Hunter and Seattle, minorities in Michigan "participated in the political process and won." Ante, at 5 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). And just as in Hunter and Seattle, "the majority's subsequent reordering of the political process repealed the minority's successes and made it more difficult for the minority to succeed in the future," thereby "diminish[ing] the minority's ability to participate meaningfully in the electoral process." Ibid.
There is therefore no need to consider "extend[ing] the holding of Hunter and Seattle to reach situations in which decisionmaking authority is moved from an administrative body to a political one," ibid. Such a scenario is not before us.
 
2014-04-23 01:37:58 PM  
In a perfect world affirmative action would not be necessary.  But it's not a perfect world.  This Supreme Court would probably allow states to go back to "separate but equal" never acknowledging that it was never equal.  Maybe th days of "separate but equal" will return with public education and public facilities being equally bd in a race to the bottom.  I can see public education being cut to the bone for everyone while those who can afford it go to private schools.
 
2014-04-23 01:40:32 PM  

Garet Garrett: There is no question, then, that the elected boards in Michigan had the power to eliminate or adopt racesensitive admissions policies prior to §26. There is also no question that §26 worked an impermissible reordering of the political process; it removed that power from the elected boards and placed it instead at a higher level of the political process in Michigan. See supra, at 17-22. This case is no different from Hunter and Seattle in that respect. Just as in Hunter and Seattle, minorities in Michigan "participated in the political process and won." Ante, at 5 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). And just as in Hunter and Seattle, "the majority's subsequent reordering of the political process repealed the minority's successes and made it more difficult for the minority to succeed in the future," thereby "diminish[ing] the minority's ability to participate meaningfully in the electoral process." Ibid.
There is therefore no need to consider "extend[ing] the holding of Hunter and Seattle to reach situations in which decisionmaking authority is moved from an administrative body to a political one," ibid. Such a scenario is not before us.


Ok, I think I understand what she's saying. Here's a parallel.

Imagine you have a state which is 60% white and 40% black. Some cities are majority white, others majority black. The current policy in the state is that each city can decide on the admissions systems for its own city. So many 10% of the white cities choose to implement AA, while 90% of the black cities do.

Now, imagine the state says they don't like that anymore. Rather, they are going to take that power out of the hands of the cities and put it in the hands of the state legislature, which is elected statewide. Because the state is 60% white, the state legislature is as well (just making up numbers).

By changing the location of where the policy is made, the state has essentially removed black people from the decision-making process here. Is that blatantly unconstitutional? Sotomayer thinks it is. I don't think that's a crazy argument. It's very similar to the voting rights arguments about at-large v. by-district representation, no?
 
2014-04-23 01:41:18 PM  

runwiz: In a perfect world affirmative action would not be necessary.  But it's not a perfect world.  This Supreme Court would probably allow states to go back to "separate but equal" never acknowledging that it was never equal.  Maybe th days of "separate but equal" will return with public education and public facilities being equally bd in a race to the bottom.  I can see public education being cut to the bone for everyone while those who can afford it go to private schools.


Justice Breyer said racism has ended so there it is.
 
2014-04-23 01:55:45 PM  

Garet Garrett: Oh, no doubt AA has horribly undermined the achievements of its supposed beneficiaries, and even those whose achievements are simply assumed by the ignorant to have gotten where they are as a result of AA.


Really? Funny I have never heard of a beneficiary say that. I have only heard that from white people say that it hurts them.

You have some facts to back that up?
 
2014-04-23 01:57:24 PM  

Garet Garrett: Oh, no doubt AA has horribly undermined the achievements of its supposed beneficiaries, and even those whose achievements are simply assumed by the ignorant to have gotten where they are as a result of AA.



Allowing admittance because someone has more money also do the same? Or does this magically only work for race?
 
2014-04-23 02:05:08 PM  

bdub77: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

He should just change his first name to Uncle.


Clarence Thomas prefers to be adressed as "Antonin Scalia's Ballsack Barnacle", thankyouverymuch!
 
2014-04-23 02:16:47 PM  

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: The only way you could rightfully say they could not do this is if you think banning affirmative action is discriminatory. I don't think you can say it is. But that also doesn't mean that Affirmative Action is discriminatory.

I actually don't think most of us have a problem with the outcome of the decision; I'm certainly not that upset at it. But the logic used in writing is...incredibly bad. It reads like something a 19 year old Reddit user would conjur up about race relations.

I didn't read any comments at first. Sometimes I do that so that my comment won't be influenced. After I went back I was pretty surprised how many people also on the left here have the same opinion as me.

I heard the host on NPR yesterday and she was clueless about it. She seemed to not be able to get her head around that this ruling isn't the same as saying "All affirmative action is discriminatory". It was frustrating to listen to.


Npr is bad on race issues. They go straight fox news levels over it.
 
2014-04-23 02:17:29 PM  

Garet Garrett: DrBenway: Garet Garrett: DrBenway: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.

You might want to check your facts.  When Thomas went to law school, Affirmative Action consisted pretty much of what the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.

But of course, you don't actually want to check your facts.

So then, Justice Thomas hasn't said that affirmative action devalued his Yale law degree?

Oh, no doubt AA has horribly undermined the achievements of its supposed beneficiaries, and even those whose achievements are simply assumed by the ignorant to have gotten where they are as a result of AA.  I'm just rejecting the suggestion, which you endorsed, that he got where he was as a result of what we now think of as AA - that is, positive-discrimination, race-based admissions.

Maybe if you worked as hard as he has over the years, you wouldn't be jealous and spiteful.


The great thing about people like yourself is that it takes so very little to set you off and running with paragraph after paragraph of "WTF am I reading?" goodness.
 
2014-04-23 03:32:58 PM  

DamnYankees: Ok, I think I understand what she's saying. Here's a parallel.

Imagine you have a state which is 60% white and 40% black. Some cities are majority white, others majority black. The current policy in the state is that each city can decide on the admissions systems for its own city. So many 10% of the white cities choose to implement AA, while 90% of the black cities do.

Now, imagine the state says they don't like that anymore. Rather, they are going to take that power out of the hands of the cities and put it in the hands of the state legislature, which is elected statewide. Because the state is 60% white, the state legislature is as well (just making up numbers).

By changing the location of where the policy is made, the state has essentially removed black people from the decision-making process here. Is that blatantly unconstitutional? Sotomayer thinks it is. I don't think that's a crazy argument. It's very similar to the voting rights arguments about at-large v. by-district representation, no?


Reading between the lines of her dissent, I thought of the phrase, "The tyranny of the majority". I can't disagree that this is what happened.
 
2014-04-23 03:46:07 PM  

Jekylman: Reading between the lines of her dissent, I thought of the phrase, "The tyranny of the majority".


I think of that when I see a bunch of sad-sacks huddling around a patio smoking outside of a bar.
 
2014-04-23 03:46:53 PM  

Garet Garrett: DrBenway: BritneysSpeculum: Clarence Thomas dissented?

BOOM!

Yeah, the guy whose devalued-by-affirmative-action Yale law degree took him to the Supreme Court. I feel for him.

You might want to check your facts.  When Thomas went to law school, Affirmative Action consisted pretty much of what the Supreme Court upheld yesterday.

But of course, you don't actually want to check your facts.



In a November 1983 speech to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Thomas called affirmative action "critical to minorities and women in this society."Then, his remarks got personal: "But for them (affirmative-action laws), God only knows where I would be today. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." - source:http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=1995 0626&slu g =2128294

As an undergraduate at Holy Cross College, Thomas received a scholarship set aside for racial minorities. He was admitted to Yale Law School in 1971 as part of an aggressive (and successful) affirmative-action program with a clear goal: 10 percent minority enrollment. Yale offered him generous financial aid.  - source above, here http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=647  and from his own book: http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2007/10/11/in-new-book-clarence- thomas-d irects-ire-toward-yale-law/
 
2014-04-23 04:04:10 PM  
Does anyone really believe that Thomas would have been elevated to the S. Ct. if he was white?  He replaced Thurgood Marshall.  Bush had to fill the seat with a black man and Thomas was one of the few conservative black circuit judges around at the time.
 
2014-04-23 04:25:00 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: ArkAngel: They made the right decision. I don't see how the respondents could say with a straight face that a state constitutional amendment requiring equal protection could violate the 14th Amendment rule of equal protection..

I don't disagree.  Congress could exercise its Section 5 authority to prevent states from passing such amendments but in the absence of that, states can pass this sort of amendment.  Roberts however is delusional in his retort to the dissent.  He basically argues that there would be no racism if there wasn't racial preferencing.


I think it would be very nice to live in the world John Roberts seems to inhabit, where there is no more racism.  I don't know quite how to get there from here without affirmative action, though, because racism is built into American culture.  (I won't speak for other countries, but I'm sure they have their own problems.)  Truly eradicating racism and discrimination is a project that will take centuries, not decades.  It isn't over just because a comfortable white guy who has had a comfortable white life thinks it's over.  It will be over when ethnic differences mean as much in the U.S. as the difference between being a Norman and a Saxon means in the UK.
 
2014-04-23 04:39:11 PM  

Corvus: Allowing admittance because someone has more money also do the same? Or does this magically only work for race?


Are you seriously saying that if the proverbial boss' son gets hired, that nobody thinks he's unqualified until proven otherwise?
 
2014-04-23 04:40:31 PM  

BMFPitt: Corvus: Allowing admittance because someone has more money also do the same? Or does this magically only work for race?

Are you seriously saying that if the proverbial boss' son gets hired, that nobody thinks he's unqualified until proven otherwise?


He didn't say nepotism. He just said rich people. Do you think someone is unqualified because he came from a rich family?
 
2014-04-23 04:43:56 PM  
DamnYankees:He didn't say nepotism. He just said rich people. Do you think someone is unqualified because he came from a rich family?

OK, then his analogy is nonsensical.  I was trying to read between the lines to have it actually fit the context.
 
2014-04-23 04:44:01 PM  

Raoul Eaton: I think it would be very nice to live in the world John Roberts seems to inhabit, where there is no more racism. I don't know quite how to get there from here without affirmative action, though, because racism is built into American culture. (I won't speak for other countries, but I'm sure they have their own problems.) Truly eradicating racism and discrimination is a project that will take centuries, not decades. It isn't over just because a comfortable white guy who has had a comfortable white life thinks it's over. It will be over when ethnic differences mean as much in the U.S. as the difference between being a Norman and a Saxon means in the UK.


I wasn't suggesting that racism is gone.  My point was more to the legal analysis.  Not even the 14th Amendment can be read to require states to do something about racism.  The Supreme Court has long ago noted the 14th amendment is not a source of rights to individuals but rather imposes limitations on what the states do.
 
2014-04-23 04:50:20 PM  

BMFPitt: DamnYankees:He didn't say nepotism. He just said rich people. Do you think someone is unqualified because he came from a rich family?

OK, then his analogy is nonsensical.  I was trying to read between the lines to have it actually fit the context.


Why is it nonsensical? Rich kids have benefits most people don't. Why is that benefit not disqualifying, but a racial benefit is?
 
2014-04-23 04:54:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Why is it nonsensical? Rich kids have benefits most people don't. Why is that benefit not disqualifying, but a racial benefit is?


Those advantages cause then to actually be more qualified, as opposed to artificially preferred.
 
2014-04-23 05:03:31 PM  

BMFPitt: DamnYankees: Why is it nonsensical? Rich kids have benefits most people don't. Why is that benefit not disqualifying, but a racial benefit is?

Those advantages cause then to actually be more qualified, as opposed to artificially preferred.


Well, that sort of reveals the point. When you define "qualified" to encompass those qualities that definitionally accrue to rich people, you've basically created an aristocracy. Don't be surprised if people disagree with you about that.
 
2014-04-23 05:04:13 PM  

BMFPitt: Corvus: Allowing admittance because someone has more money also do the same? Or does this magically only work for race?

Are you seriously saying that if the proverbial boss' son gets hired, that nobody thinks he's unqualified until proven otherwise?


Your analogy sucks. College you still have to do the same amount of work. Affirmative action is only admittance. Working at a job because you often don't have to perform the same. It's not close at all.
 
2014-04-23 05:05:02 PM  

BMFPitt: DamnYankees: Why is it nonsensical? Rich kids have benefits most people don't. Why is that benefit not disqualifying, but a racial benefit is?

Those advantages cause then to actually be more qualified, as opposed to artificially preferred.


George W. Bush unquestionably disproves that postulate.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report