I agree totally....letting anyone slide or handicapping their entry exam is like letting Daddy Bigbucks buy his son/daughter a seat at the best schools ( which will never be controlled, thats just the way the cookie crumbles )......but aid ( loans, grants ,schalorships are a different story they should always tilt towards the most needy ).........................
I totally agree with this in general terms... like Magna said, perhaps additional places should be created for the minorities, so that the majority doesn't suffer...
rlb, My earlier post to you was written in haste and I am afraid came out a little more confrontational than I intended. I do get a bit heated about this subject, but not because of the racial angle. What steams me is the spectacle of the Supreme Court acting as some annointed council of elders, purporting to wisely decide any and all troublesome issues for a grateful populace. In reality our Constitution gives them a much more limited role, one that was well understood until FDR decided enacting the New Deal was more important than following the Constitution. It's been downhill ever since. So now we find ourselves in a situation where Supreme Court Justices, assisted by the brightest law clerks in the land, think it is perfectly appropriate to say that something may be constitutional now but perhaps not after 25 years. How can that make any sense? Is there a clause in the 14 th Amendment that says "states may discriminate if they mean well, but only for 25 years"? The Constitution I read entitles us all to "equal protection" and "due process", and there are no exceptions for helping white students develop more PC attitudes. Finally, I am afraid you have misunderstood the significance of state action. The University of Michigan, as a state school, is actually more constrained by the constitution than a purely private institution. Teh Consitution acts a s a restraint on governmenta ction, not private. The test is not whether they are advancing liberal social policy, but whether or not they are engaging in racial discrimination. They try to dodge this by saying, well it may look like race conscious discrimination but actually we are only ensuring diversity. I wonder what your reaction would be if some southern state university said, we have had a lot of racial tension, so we are only going to admit blacks that we are sure will fit in. It may look like discrimination, but we are actually advancing the neutral policy of maintaining an orderly campus, which benefits all students.
I am happy I was able to clear things up for you. LOL. One correction however. I did not make a distinction between "minorities" and "real students". What I said was that diversity advocates seem to make that distinction. That is a big difference. It is demeaning and stigmatizing to the affected minorities, and even worse, it taints the achievements of minorities who did not benefit from affirmative action. As for the broader question of whether universities teach you to think or coerce youinto adopting PC groupthink, can you honestly say you have had opposing viewpoints on any of the hot button PC issues in a university forum? Have you ever had a professor who was conservative, against affirmative action or pro-life? Why isn't diversity of viewpoint or political opinion at least as important as skin color diversity? Is "tolerance" only a virtue for things you agree with? Frankly, I am disappointed in today's students that they so meekly follow the lead of the faculty and adminstrations. Whatever happened to being a rebel? And as for trusting the university administrations to act responsibly and in the best interests of society, give me a break. Name one other public institution we give that kind of latitude to. If the taxpayers of a state are paying the bills, then they have a right to direct policy. You don't like it, start your own school.
you make some very good points. part of it is that Congress, as it has in so many areas, has surrendered and (unconstitutionally) allowed other groups to handle what should be legislative duties, for political reasons and to avoid difficult issues. the court has assumed this super-legislative role only because Congress let it. a prime example is roe v. wade -- an obviously legislative matter is "legalized," by unelected committee, without having to deal with actual statutes and votes and all that tiresome democracy stuff. endless debate settled without Congress even having to risk a vote. same with the Fed, the SEC, IRS, etc. - let someone else take the heat, there are fundraisers to attend and bribes to collect! on the originally limited role of the court - you have to wonder how long before they just do away with the "case and controversy" requirement and appoint themselves lifetime Platonic guardians to the extent they haven't already, issuing edicts at whim to correct the evils of society. that seems the logical conclusion, given the trend. interesting link on the early development of the court: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
The questions is do we want assimilation of minorities? If so, then we have to take steps to bring them up to the same overall educational and opportunity levels of whites. The steps being taken are not discriminatory on whites, but rather necessary steps to improve the overall level of homogeneousness in society. The glass is being filled to half full, not half empty. Personally, I would prefer never to hear the terms African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Irish American, etc. Let it all go, and just call yourself an American. Equal opportunity for all Americans will come when all have the desire to let go of their ethnicity in favor of a non descriptive ethnicity or race of citizenship. However, getting from the current point A to the desired point B, takes an awareness and willingness of everyone to work together to accomplish the goals, even if it means in the near term that some born of privilege need sacrifice that privilege for the good of society as a whole.
An excellent point. The usual way this is dealt with is through a law that is then challenged, then appealled to the Supreme Court. The interesting point, though, is that the court isn't actually making legislation, it just strikes down legislation or gives approval. But remember that given the fact that our electoral cycles are so short in the House, money means even more now. That's one of the main reasons that the Executive and Judicial branches are so much more dominant now. The Legislative branch can't afford to make the tough decisions because their heads are on the chopping block constantly.