Yes, bigots will always exist. But affirmative action works to amplify the problem. As stated in my example, whether or not racism existed prior to AA, if you put in a program that gives preference to someone based on their race, and they are getting in with much lower scores, it will cause people to have that viewpoint. You yourself assume that Justice Thomas would not be where he was but for AA. If you do not see how offensive that is to a very intelligent hard working person like Justice Thomas, I don't know what else to say. Affirmative Action has made a lot of good changes, but tweaking the program to not be about race but about giving a benefit to those who have had less of an opportunity to succeed makes sense.
First, the poor are ALREADY discriminated against. The majority of the issues in this regard are due to class. It is class warfare, and everyone in poverty is a victim. I agree with many of the general points of the Time article I posted yesterday. Secondly, if you have a program that lets in more disadvantaged/poor, it will be much harder to have a bias as it may be harder to differentiate. For example, if AA was based on class, you would not likely argue someone is a Sup. Ct. justice because AA helped them.
I don't think that. The Supreme Court thinks that. And that is why it was overturned. Essentially, almost anyone get get 80 points without race. The last 20 were the difference makers. So race did make the difference.
https://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/the-baylor-law-data-dump-now-with-race-and-scholarships/2/
This is just one example with a clear breakdown. If you understand the way the LSAT is scored (one answer is not one point) you see a huge preference. Having applied to many of these programs with an LSAT over 160, I can tell you it is tough to get in. From a quick glance, it looks like one white student was admitted with an LSAT under 160 (list did not identify male/female). And they are giving larger scholarships as well (which again, would make more sense to base this on class. Give poor students more of a financial benefit). At the internal list I saw, a good friend, who happens to be black got in with under 150 at a school with similar LSAT scores as Baylor.
You did. You stated affirmative action helped Justice Thomas. You just assumed and stereotyped, then tried to defend it when you have no idea what his LSAT score was.
This country has a history of oppression. The difference is is "OK" to oppress the poor under the constitution. It is easy to say blacks are oppressed based on our country's history, but reparations, which have been both good and bad have been attempted. For those in poverty, it is the status quo.
Yes, I have copies of internal copies of school documents. The Baylor document gives a reasonable view. And it was post-Gratz.
Racism already exists. When you put a program in place that lets in lesser qualified individuals, it can create a stigma against that person or persons. It is a targeted stigma based on clear data. I understand the reasons for AA, and I'm not saying get rid of it, just tweak it so it actually represents all the less fortunate. Tweaking AA won't get rid of racism, that is a different issue. It will get rid of a created bias as argued by Justice Thomas. That is why he is against it. So don't take it from me, take it from a genius black jurist who has felt the bias AA creates:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
The funny thing is, you pointed out how he stated his diploma was worth $0.15, but he believes AA caused it. You should read the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
All you are doing is justifying your bias caused by AA. First, you have no idea what Thomas' LSAT score was, which for Yale, is the biggest factor (Median score of 173). You are just making a biased assumption. Your comments are a clear example of the type of racism that is created by AA.
Ever taken a sociology course? Of course we differentiate. We even mate with people similar to us (not just race). And it is also human nature to have an ego and make you think you are better than you probably are. A survival characteristic. And when you have a mechanism that does differentiate, how can it not cause bias?
That is a ridiculous statement. The reason I use the red head example, is to show that the program creates a bias that was not there before, that can be identified by a trait. Racism will exist no matter what. But AA is a mechanism that creates a bias, even for those who are not racist.
Social inequalities are harmful to everyone, it is important to to question the status quo and to determine whether our kind has the behavioral plasticity to learn how to reduce inequality. If you look at human nature historically, discrimination in some form has always been part of the status quo. Differentiating is part of the human condition, but I believe we can be better. Continue to believe your fantasies.
