8 ms·

> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration

> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".

throwaway_law 7y ago
I suppose its not far from the SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases of porn/obscenity, they can't quite define it, but they'll know it when they see it. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/) >The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510 >But such measures, the Convention instructs, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." Ibid.; see also Art. 1(4) (similarly providing for temporally limited affirmative action); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Annex to G. A. Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Res. Supp. (No. 46), p. 194, U. N. Doc. A/34/46, Art. 4(1) (1979) (authorizing "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality" that "shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved").
smashthepants 7y ago
Income inequality is only "unachievable" exactly because of thinking like this. If people were genuinely invested in equality they would be asking "what can i do to get us there faster?" instead of being defeatist and calling it unachievable because you didn't personally create the problem.
- asdf21 7y ago
  You didn't answer his question, created a strawman, put words in his mouth, implied he doesn't care about equality (isn't treating people equally, regardless of race equality?)... goodness.
  - smashthepants 7y ago
    He explicitly said income equality is unachievable. I didn't put those words in his mouth. You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      When, in the history of humanity, has income ever been at an acceptable level of equality? If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
      - smashthepants 7y ago
        The goal is defined - equality. If it mattered to you it wouldn't be a complicated concept to grasp. And just as I said in my previous comment, this is the exact sentiment that prevents the goal of equality from being reached. Just because something has never been done that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And if you and everyone who doesn't support such a policy are unwilling to participate, then you're right, it will never be achieved.
        tomschlick 7y ago
        There will always be rich, there will always be poor. That's simple economics. There has not been a society in human history that hasn't had those. Pretending that you can magically wish that away is crazy. Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/pushing out gangs/preventing fatherless homes/etc). But pretending that you're going to fix those socioeconomic issues by giving preferential treatment to people based on race is just pulling other problems into the mix and is blatantly racist.
balls187 7y ago
> So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Difficult to answer, and honestly not at all a priority to have an answer.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  It is when the courts say as a temporary measure its ok. You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent.
  - balls187 7y ago
    > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."
    - vageli 7y ago
      > > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. > Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. > The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor." Are new Roe v Wade like cases being heard by the court? There's a chilling effect to people bringing these cases to consider.
      - mlevental 7y ago
        https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/federal-judge-blocks-georgia-anti-abortion-law/yh1ttzbYdTcqiUT7OkyqkO/ https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/fede... I'm sure you're aware that like 10 other states have similar cases working their way through the court system
bigendian1234 7y ago
FWIW, I'm a white person who used to think of affirmative action as unfair discrimination. That was true until I spent time volunteering teaching technical skills to kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods. Now that I have had an up close experience with these communities, I'm here to tell you institutional racism is real and we're far from it making sense to end these programs. There simply is not a quick easy solution and those who are not oppressed simply have no real frame of reference to understand the problem. I encourage every person who feels these programs are unfair to spend time volunteering in poor minority communities.
- packet881 7y ago
  Feel free to make your voice heard by your vote and donate from your paycheck. This is a zero sum game and my ancestors were not oppressing either latinos or Africans. I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    This Judge was confirmed by the Senate which has been in Republican hands for some time. You should go start your own Harvard and you can exclude or admit anyone you want.
    - koolba 7y ago
      > This Judge was confirmed by the Senate which has been in Republican hands for some time. The judge was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Dale_Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Dale_Burroughs Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments so the current makeup of the Senate, short of impeaching her, has no relevance.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Education is not a zero-sum game.
    - 7y ago
rtkwe 7y ago
For starters I'd say when the racial wealth gap has closed and when racial outcomes in education even out. So many of the factors that feed back into keeping those gaps alive can be traced directly back to racist policies like red lining that only ended less than a human life time ago.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Who says fixing income inequality is unachievable?
- JPKab 7y ago
  Are all of your coworkers equally productive? Neighbors? Relatives? The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I mean, "universal basic income" would be a good start.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Adding one thousand to most statistical measures will either not change it or shift it by one thousand.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      Until everyone's cost of living goes up because they have an extra $1k/mo and landlords / retailers know it. The same thing happened with guaranteed student loans. When people have money to burn the market will react by increasing prices.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        It might, but it turns out macroeconomics isn't that simple.
  - jqgatsby 7y ago
    I don't think "fixing income inequality" needs to mean that everyone is paid the same amount. It's reasonable to believe that <insert billionaire here> isn't a million times more productive than their median employee, and that factors other than pure merit allowed them to amass that much wealth. Even if you did think that they were that meritorious, you could still make an argument that "fairness" should involve balancing both merit and utility (in this case referring to the diminishing marginal utility of money).

throwaway_law 7y ago

I suppose its not far from the SCOTUS 1st Amendment cases of porn/obscenity, they can't quite define it, but they'll know it when they see it. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/) >The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point "assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself." Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 510 >But such measures, the Convention instructs, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." Ibid.; see also Art. 1(4) (similarly providing for temporally limited affirmative action); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Annex to G. A. Res. 34/180, 34 U. N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Res. Supp. (No. 46), p. 194, U. N. Doc. A/34/46, Art. 4(1) (1979) (authorizing "temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality" that "shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved").

smashthepants 7y ago

Income inequality is only "unachievable" exactly because of thinking like this. If people were genuinely invested in equality they would be asking "what can i do to get us there faster?" instead of being defeatist and calling it unachievable because you didn't personally create the problem.

asdf21 7y ago
You didn't answer his question, created a strawman, put words in his mouth, implied he doesn't care about equality (isn't treating people equally, regardless of race equality?)... goodness.
- smashthepants 7y ago
  He explicitly said income equality is unachievable. I didn't put those words in his mouth. You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    When, in the history of humanity, has income ever been at an acceptable level of equality? If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
    - smashthepants 7y ago
      The goal is defined - equality. If it mattered to you it wouldn't be a complicated concept to grasp. And just as I said in my previous comment, this is the exact sentiment that prevents the goal of equality from being reached. Just because something has never been done that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And if you and everyone who doesn't support such a policy are unwilling to participate, then you're right, it will never be achieved.
      - tomschlick 7y ago
        There will always be rich, there will always be poor. That's simple economics. There has not been a society in human history that hasn't had those. Pretending that you can magically wish that away is crazy. Our system is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If there are issues with the opportunity then we should work to fix those (like is already being done in inner cities cleaning up the drugs/pushing out gangs/preventing fatherless homes/etc). But pretending that you're going to fix those socioeconomic issues by giving preferential treatment to people based on race is just pulling other problems into the mix and is blatantly racist.

balls187 7y ago

> So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Difficult to answer, and honestly not at all a priority to have an answer.

tomschlick 7y ago
It is when the courts say as a temporary measure its ok. You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent.
- balls187 7y ago
  > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor."
  - vageli 7y ago
    > > You have to define temporary or else it just becomes de-facto permanent. > Perhaps, once it becomes settled law. However given Roe v Wade is still up for debate means that defacto permanence is not really a problem. > The answer then is "When the supreme court decides that the argument presented is sufficient to warrant no longer allowing race-concious admissions is a factor." Are new Roe v Wade like cases being heard by the court? There's a chilling effect to people bringing these cases to consider.
    - mlevental 7y ago
      https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/federal-judge-blocks-georgia-anti-abortion-law/yh1ttzbYdTcqiUT7OkyqkO/ https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/fede... I'm sure you're aware that like 10 other states have similar cases working their way through the court system

bigendian1234 7y ago

FWIW, I'm a white person who used to think of affirmative action as unfair discrimination. That was true until I spent time volunteering teaching technical skills to kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods. Now that I have had an up close experience with these communities, I'm here to tell you institutional racism is real and we're far from it making sense to end these programs. There simply is not a quick easy solution and those who are not oppressed simply have no real frame of reference to understand the problem. I encourage every person who feels these programs are unfair to spend time volunteering in poor minority communities.

packet881 7y ago
Feel free to make your voice heard by your vote and donate from your paycheck. This is a zero sum game and my ancestors were not oppressing either latinos or Africans. I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  This Judge was confirmed by the Senate which has been in Republican hands for some time. You should go start your own Harvard and you can exclude or admit anyone you want.
  - koolba 7y ago
    > This Judge was confirmed by the Senate which has been in Republican hands for some time. The judge was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Dale_Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Dale_Burroughs Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments so the current makeup of the Senate, short of impeaching her, has no relevance.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Education is not a zero-sum game.
  - 7y ago

rtkwe 7y ago

For starters I'd say when the racial wealth gap has closed and when racial outcomes in education even out. So many of the factors that feed back into keeping those gaps alive can be traced directly back to racist policies like red lining that only ended less than a human life time ago.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Who says fixing income inequality is unachievable?

JPKab 7y ago
Are all of your coworkers equally productive? Neighbors? Relatives? The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I mean, "universal basic income" would be a good start.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Adding one thousand to most statistical measures will either not change it or shift it by one thousand.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    Until everyone's cost of living goes up because they have an extra $1k/mo and landlords / retailers know it. The same thing happened with guaranteed student loans. When people have money to burn the market will react by increasing prices.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      It might, but it turns out macroeconomics isn't that simple.
- jqgatsby 7y ago
  I don't think "fixing income inequality" needs to mean that everyone is paid the same amount. It's reasonable to believe that <insert billionaire here> isn't a million times more productive than their median employee, and that factors other than pure merit allowed them to amass that much wealth. Even if you did think that they were that meritorious, you could still make an argument that "fairness" should involve balancing both merit and utility (in this case referring to the diminishing marginal utility of money).