3 ms·

Whatever you think in theory, in practice we have an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a particular group of people on the basis o

Whatever you think in theory, in practice we have an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a particular group of people on the basis of race. We fought a civil war about it and it remains the most enduringly contentious and difficult conflict -- the defining conflict, in many ways -- in our nation's history (right up through today). It will always be a topic deserving of special dispensation. The question, therefore, is really quite simple: 1) does that legacy justify a similarly targeted set of rules designed primarily (and maybe exclusively) for the group most harmed by that racial legacy; or 2) does our Constitution in fact demand that no such racial preferences ever again be practiced on this soil? That's really the debate.

Clubber 3y ago
>The question, therefore, is really quite simple: 1) does that legacy justify a similarly special set of rules designed primarily (and maybe exclusively) for the group most harmed by that racial legacy; or 2) does our Constitution in fact demand that no such racial preferences ever again be practiced on this soil? Yes to both conflicting ideas, how about that. AA was under consideration in the mid aughts and the SCOTUS essentially said it was a special exception, and not to be permanent, but they would allow it at the time. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/publications/was-justice-oconnor-right-race-and-highly-selective-college-admissions-in-2 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/publications/w... In her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded that affirmative action in college admissions is justifiable, but not in perpetuity: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.” We conclude that under reasonable assumptions, African American students will continue to be substantially underrepresented among the most qualified college applicants for the foreseeable future. The magnitude of the underrepresentation is likely to shrink—in our most optimistic simulation, somewhat over half of the gap that would be opened by the elimination of race preferences will be closed by the projected improvement in black achievement.
sokoloff 3y ago
> It will always be a topic deserving of special dispensation. I completely disagree. Still after another 50 years? Another 150 years? Still 1000 years from now? 10,000? At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic. When exactly that is, and whether that is in the past or the future can reasonably be debated, but to conclude that it should be permanent is well beyond reason, IMO.
- digging 3y ago
  > At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic If white supremacy would stop being perpetuated, we could stop worrying about the effects of white supremacy. But the discussion doesn't have to end after a specific timeframe just because you feel uncomfortable with it.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    When someone in the future inevitably asks "what was the United States of America?", it will be long past time...
    - digging 3y ago
      How interesting that you think it's easier to destroy the USA than it is to end white supremacy in the USA.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I'm not advancing that argument at all, but rather arguing "even people who do believe that will surely agree that the USA will someday cease to exist and, later, will fall out of history to an extent that someone will have to ask who/what the USA even was and, therefore, the notion that we will forever need affirmative action because '[the USA had] an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a particular group of people on the basis of race' is highly questionable".
        3y ago

Clubber 3y ago

>The question, therefore, is really quite simple: 1) does that legacy justify a similarly special set of rules designed primarily (and maybe exclusively) for the group most harmed by that racial legacy; or 2) does our Constitution in fact demand that no such racial preferences ever again be practiced on this soil? Yes to both conflicting ideas, how about that. AA was under consideration in the mid aughts and the SCOTUS essentially said it was a special exception, and not to be permanent, but they would allow it at the time. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/publications/was-justice-oconnor-right-race-and-highly-selective-college-admissions-in-2 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/publications/w... In her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded that affirmative action in college admissions is justifiable, but not in perpetuity: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.” We conclude that under reasonable assumptions, African American students will continue to be substantially underrepresented among the most qualified college applicants for the foreseeable future. The magnitude of the underrepresentation is likely to shrink—in our most optimistic simulation, somewhat over half of the gap that would be opened by the elimination of race preferences will be closed by the projected improvement in black achievement.

sokoloff 3y ago

> It will always be a topic deserving of special dispensation. I completely disagree. Still after another 50 years? Another 150 years? Still 1000 years from now? 10,000? At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic. When exactly that is, and whether that is in the past or the future can reasonably be debated, but to conclude that it should be permanent is well beyond reason, IMO.

digging 3y ago
> At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic If white supremacy would stop being perpetuated, we could stop worrying about the effects of white supremacy. But the discussion doesn't have to end after a specific timeframe just because you feel uncomfortable with it.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  When someone in the future inevitably asks "what was the United States of America?", it will be long past time...
  - digging 3y ago
    How interesting that you think it's easier to destroy the USA than it is to end white supremacy in the USA.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I'm not advancing that argument at all, but rather arguing "even people who do believe that will surely agree that the USA will someday cease to exist and, later, will fall out of history to an extent that someone will have to ask who/what the USA even was and, therefore, the notion that we will forever need affirmative action because '[the USA had] an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a particular group of people on the basis of race' is highly questionable".
      - 3y ago