'Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban'

christiefan915 said:
I looked it up. When AA was enacted in 1961 there were 97 men to every 100 women. So it's pretty sad that the majority needed a law to even the playing field with white guys. And minorities are still trying to catch up.
Click to expand...

What does white have to do with it? And I'm not arguing men need any special treatment but you are calling women getting 60% of diplomas equal?
 
cawacko said:
What does white have to do with it? And I'm not arguing men need any special treatment but you are calling women getting 60% of diplomas equal?
Click to expand...
If white men aren't getting AA, then nothing. But as a group white men weren't and aren't discriminated against. And women didn't start getting a majority of the diplomas until the '80s, I believe.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the decision in this particular case is applicable, to wit - ""Our Constitution does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process.... It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals" which is basically what most regulatory gun laws are
Click to expand...
Does this mean you disagree with her stance on Schuette but would agree with the same stance if applied to gun regs?
 
christiefan915 said:
Does this mean you disagree with her stance on Schuette but would agree with the same stance if applied to gun regs?
Click to expand...

tough one. her dissent strictly applies to changing the political landscape to shut out a minority. the same could be said for gerrymandering. in that respect, I agree with her. I think that she should apply this particular stance to ALL groups and rights, not just voting rights. In her dissension with Breyer in mcdonald, she abandoned that principal.
 
christiefan915 said:
If white men aren't getting AA, then nothing. But as a group white men weren't and aren't discriminated against. And women didn't start getting a majority of the diplomas until the '80s, I believe.
Click to expand...

The stat was men vs. women. It wasn't white men vs. women. Women get more associate, bachelor, masters and doctorates than men. They get more in each category. How much longer do you feel women need advantages over men to get into college?
 
We have no AA in California and here are the UC admission numbers. Asians have the most and there are more Latinos than Whites. So if this is happening naturally why do we need AA? And it the goal is for more blacks to go to college then why not make AA exclusively to the benefit of black students?

""For the first time, the number of Latinos from California offered freshman admission to UC was larger than that for whites. Reflecting demographic trends, 28.8% of those admitted to at least one UC campus were Latino, compared with 26.8% white. At 36.2%, Asian Americans again made up the largest ethnic group among admitted students from California. Blacks from California were just 4.2%, a number that officials said was disturbingly low.""


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-uc-admit-20140419,0,3471945.story#axzz2zO1fThWR
 
cawacko said:
The stat was men vs. women. It wasn't white men vs. women. Women get more associate, bachelor, masters and doctorates than men. They get more in each category. How much longer do you feel women need advantages over men to get into college?
Click to expand...

I don't think women are getting advantages over men today, do you? And my initial point was, AA was enacted in 1961 to "provide special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination", yet even then women were in the majority and should never have been considered disadvantaged, or have been discriminated against.

Who was getting the privileges back in 1961 if not white men? Stats show that women are doing better than men today re: college degrees but what about the other groups AA was enacted for, how long until they do just as well as white men and women?
 
christiefan915 said:
I don't think women are getting advantages over men today, do you? And my initial point was, AA was enacted in 1961 to "provide special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination", yet even then women were in the majority and should never have been considered disadvantaged, or have been discriminated against.

Who was getting the privileges back in 1961 if not white men? Stats show that women are doing better than men today re: college degrees but what about the other groups AA was enacted for, how long until they do just as well as white men and women?
Click to expand...

White people were getting the advantages. I'm aware of discrimination laws against black people that held them down. I'm not saying there weren't any but I'm unaware of any laws that specifically discriminated against women that was preventing them from going to college back in the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top