-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Special Report
Affirmative Action on Life Support
Isn’t it past time that Martin Luther King’s dream be recognized?
Monday was a banner day in jurisprudence: On that morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the most overturned Court of Appeals in the nation — actually got one right.
In a ruling that relied more on precedent than on new analysis, the court’s three-judge panel determined that California’s ban on the use of race as a criterion in college admission was constitutional (both under the state and federal constitutions), notwithstanding that ending affirmative action caused a 50 percent drop in the number of minority students enrolled at UC Berkeley and UCLA.
The court addressed this same question in the 1997 case of Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson. In that opinion, in which they originally found the ban on affirmative action constitutional, the court was told that ending race-based admissions would cause a dramatic drop in minority enrollment. Thus, making the argument in 2012 that such a drop did indeed happen does not change the analysis.
The judges’ ruling was essentially that they are not permitted to overturn the decision of a prior panel of the court given that the facts are essentially unchanged.
The opinion was forceful, including dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought back to court, because “it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”
The California plaintiffs tried to base their claims in part on a 2003 Supreme Court case called Grutter v. Bollinger, in which a 5-4 majority comprising four liberals and Sandra Day O’Connor said that the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race as a factor in admissions was permissible. (It was an unusual decision because it was made simultaneously with a 6-3 opinion — including O’Connor in the majority — in Gratz v. Bollinger, which invalidated the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy of awarding extra “points” to minorities in the school’s formula for admitting students.)
As the Ninth Circuit’s panel properly noted, “Grutter upheld as permissible certain race-based affirmative action programs. It did not hold that such programs are constitutionally required.” (Emphasis in original.)
Grutter remains front and center because in February the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case called Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in which (as in Grutter) a white student, Abigail Fisher, claimed to have been denied admission to the university because preference was given to less qualified minority students.
Last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a verdict by a Texas District Court finding for the University’s admissions policy and against Fisher. That ruling stood on the University’s argument that there are “educational benefits that flow from diversity” (as if Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Black’s Law Dictionary cares about the skin color of the person trying to understand it).
Interestingly, and portending a serious weakness in the Fifth Circuit’s decision, their ruling concludes, “We are satisfied that the University’s decision to reintroduce race-conscious admissions was adequately supported by the ‘serious, good faith consideration’ required by Grutter.”
First, and understanding the difference between consideration and implementation, as the Ninth Circuit properly found, Grutter permitted race-based admissions but did not require them.
Second, the Fifth Circuit took the term “serious, good faith consideration” substantially out of context: In the Grutter decision itself, Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, said that “narrow tailoring” — a characteristic of an admissions plan’s racial aspects required for them to be constitutional — “does, however, require serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”
In other words, the Fifth Circuit implied that the Supreme Court mandated serious consideration of race-based admissions when they actually mandated serious consideration of race-neutral alternatives. While the Supreme Court’s decision in the case will not hinge on the Appeals Court’s getting the context of three words wrong, an undecided Justice may — even if subconsciously — be forgiven for wondering whether the Circuit ruling must be quite weak if they had to resort to rhetorical shenanigans to support it.
While President Obama has generally avoided questions on affirmative action, the Justice Department submitted an Amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit in support of the University’s admissions policy and its racial aspects.
By “granting cert” the Court is giving a strong hint that it may not only find the University’s current use of affirmative action goes beyond what Grutter allows, but may also overturn Grutter completely now that Sandra Day O’Connor has left the Court. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, meaning the case may not be decided until June, 2013.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/06/affirmative-action-on-life-sup
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 4.6.12 @ 7:25AM
we will never, as a nation, end unequal treatment bacause of race (racism) until we stop treating people differently because of race (affirmative action as commonly practiced)
Jack in Wi.| 4.6.12 @ 10:36AM
Just end it don't mend it. What is wrong with equality before the law? Have a happy Passover Ross.
BTims| 4.6.12 @ 7:34AM
AA will never end since mass immigation will never end and the political/lawyer class has classified immigrants as needing AA.
Ross, since you are a big supporter of mass, never-ending immigrati0n, and Latinos are considered the new protected class (with Mohammedans coming in a close 2nd), we'll never see an end to the government/political game of AA.
It's all about displacing native born, White Americans through endless immigration.
Pete| 4.6.12 @ 3:49PM
And I don't see Romney getting rid of it.
Kenny| 4.6.12 @ 7:54AM
Affirmative action is both immoral and unconstitutional.
Oh, and it will end.
Up to now, the U.S. has had it so good that it didn't matter much that some middle class whites got screwed. Now the party is over, and the country's attitude is going to change towards not just on AA itself but also regarding those who avail themselves of it.
Rex| 4.7.12 @ 8:04AM
Kenny, you are simply wrong. I like your optimism but it is completely misplaced.
As noted above, affirmative action will continue unimpeded (sure, with a setback here or there) because this is a reason for so many lawyers, law firms, and social services to exist.
They aren't going to allow their career and cash cow to die.
New minorities are quick to learn of their "rights" and learn them much faster than they learn the real skills that workplaces and society needs.
You are also assuming that the deans, college professors, partners, even military generals and admirals -- all of whom know in their heart of hearts that they benefitted mightily from afirmative action -- they will louly or quietly but surely fight to maitain unequal favors for their offspring, relatives, etc.
There are so many minority groups that can benefit! West Africans, Latin Americans, Indians from South America, Pacific Islanders, those from former colonies in the Caribbean, even Koreans and Taiwanese will jump on this in some select cases. Note that I have not yet talked about people from Malaysia, Indonesia, the various emirates in the Middle East, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, those who follow Allah,..... Wait until the Asians from mainland China (yes, that communist China) learn how to work this system! "Baby, you aint seen nothing yet."
Maybe you need to see what the recent Iraqi "settlers" in Omaha, Nebraska are demanding.
Affirmative Action is alive and well.
Just remember this when you view the incoming class at your child's university of choice, when you look at the faculty, when you look at political appointees ALL ACROSS THE LAND in city, county, state and, of course, national government, and when you look at senior officers and non commissioned officers in the U.S. military.
A court ruling here or there won't change one dweedle what really occurs.
qwilly| 4.6.12 @ 7:55AM
What If? The Congressional Black Caucus could agree on one problem, affecting all of their constiuants, daily. Then advocate and work to fix
that for a whole year. How much better their part of America would be. Lets just Hope and Change..
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.6.12 @ 11:45AM
What If? We didn't have such things as Congressional "Black" Caucuses, "Hispanic" Caucuses, and "Asian" Caucuses? And, WHY would these Racist Congressional Enclaves, never allow a WHITE Caucus?
Only someone who only goes on Vacations to places where you need MALARIA PILLS, would be Naive enough to think that "The One we've Been Waiting For" will ever let that happen.
Only Africa's Great White Tourist would believe that the Boy raised in Indonesia's Muslim Schools and Mosques, would allow Equal Rights to all Citizens.
As somebody wrote for you, in this Story: Even though the Michigan Law School's use of Race, in Admissions, was struck down. They can still use RACE in ADMISSIONS.
The Horses are already out of the Barn. The Camel's nose is under the Tent, and I think that might be the first symptom of the Ebola Virus, there, under your arm.
I'd get that looked at, if I were you.
qwilly| 4.6.12 @ 11:53AM
No search for solutions here just ignorance and hate...continue to exhibit your limited capacity and back woods genius........
loulou| 4.6.12 @ 12:23PM
Solutions?? I'll give you a solution--end all discrimination based on race. In other words, no more Affirmative Action.
qwilly| 4.6.12 @ 12:46PM
Affirmative Action is a function of the U.S.government, designed for past wrongs, now used by every so called victim group. Women, gays, illegal aliens you name it.
Miles Glorious| 4.7.12 @ 11:36AM
Merde its designed to keep a political party and perpetual power
Al Adab| 4.6.12 @ 12:50PM
Great question Tim. We need to return to being a nation where people are treated by their government as individuals not as members of a group, class ethnicity or race. Can we not state that those who view every issue through the prism or lens of Race are themselves the Racists?
It is a sad commentary on what The Left has made of Civil Rights that when people quote MLK today about the content of character not the color of skin being the determinant, they are branded by those who pad their nests through victimology and demagogury. It harms America and does not lift up those they purport to help. Shame.
Lesser Weevil| 4.6.12 @ 1:51PM
How about we return to being a nation where the government leaves people the hell alone, except within the narrow range allowed by its enumerated powers?
Al Adab| 4.6.12 @ 2:36PM
LW:
Sounds like a plan to me.
spike59| 4.9.12 @ 7:28AM
What If? the CBC would get it thru their heads that their constituents are the people in each of their districts, not one race of people
not bloody likely
Anthony| 4.6.12 @ 9:20AM
Ross, how interesting, so Justice Kagan has recused herself from this case because she was Obozo's Solicitor General, but Kagan could not manage the same ethical application to Obozocare.
Looks to me like we have a true leftist ideologue on the Court (as if we didn't know) who engages in rank situational ethics, when the situation calls for it.
As for dear Justice O'Connor, the Sociologist-in-Chief of the Supreme Court, it was she who opined that we needed another 25 years or so of affirmative action to make things right.
I wonder now that Obozo has been elected president, if she might agree that we can shave a few years off of her requirement, ya know, give America "extra-credit" for having elected "The One".
Then again, maybe Obozo and Holder will double down and employ the New Back Panthers to insure American colleges "keep their minds right".
On this Good Friday, things look bleak.
Mike Hawk| 4.6.12 @ 9:41AM
Kagan is nothing more than Obozo's stooge. By recusing herself in this case she give the impression of judiciousness. It is a charade.
Dmac | 4.6.12 @ 12:27PM
By recusing herself in this case she showed what she truly is, corrupt! It's the only answer allowable. If she recused herself because she represented the government on this case, then she must recuse herself on all cases that she once represented the government on.
Now it's up to the Chief Justice to call her out on it since it seems she has now seen the light. If I were Chief Justice Roberts I would ask her one simple question, if you felt it necassary to recuse yourself from this case then why did you not recuse yourself from the other?
There is no suitable answer.
TrueBlue | 4.6.12 @ 2:57PM
What's worse is that not only did she not recuse herself from the Obamacare case, she actually publically defended the Act when the attorney started to stumble.
SC Mike| 4.6.12 @ 9:48AM
Affirmative action has a pernicious effect on those whom it purports to help: the expectation that one’s special status will compensate for lack of ambition and lack of accomplishment. Thus minorities expecting special treatment don’t work as hard as those of equal ability who don’t expect the bonus points of being the favored minority.
Asians have the advantage of intact families and ambition, yet they make up the group most hurt by affirmative action. Asians must score much higher in order to gain admission to the top schools. How is that fair or in any way congruent with what America is all about?
PolishKnight| 4.6.12 @ 10:15AM
That's not necessarily the case. The older generation of Asians are conservative and would frown upon AA out of principle but many of the newer Asian immigrants are firm democrats and get AA in a number of ways including being included in the list of "women and minority" (in other words, non white male) businesses and suppliers that large corporations and government institutions give favorable contracts to, hiring quotas, and preferential treatment. In addition, Asians are also often among the groups that can practice good ol' boy cronyism and discrimination against other races.
Another thing to consider is that Asians are as fundamentally different as European Americans were at the turn of the last century. Indians, Chinese, and the Vietnamese are as radically different as Poles, Germans, and the Irish immigrants were in terms of political affiliation.
Dmac | 4.6.12 @ 12:33PM
Unless your a Native American, as in Indian with a feather, this is no more your country than it is any black born here. Your family most likely had a choice about coming to America. No slave had that choice. I find your comment racist and ignorant. There are plenty of negative things that can be said about the black community without it being a blatently racist comment.
Maybe you should read a history book and see who fired the first shot of the American Revolution? There are many fine blacks in this country. We need to promote those blackas as much as possible and demote the race baiters. But with comments like your's it will only fuel the race baiters. Blacks are here to stay, now lets see what we can do to get them on board with what is best for them and best for the country, and let us whites do what is best for the country as well.
Appleby| 4.6.12 @ 1:11PM
There are no slaves in America today, nor are there any children nor grandchildren of slaves. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans never had a family member who owned slaves, never knew anybody whose family owned slaves, and in fact the majority of Americans' ancestors didn't even come to America until after slavery was outlawed. There is also not now, nor has there ever been, any law requiring people whose ancestors were transported here as slaves to remain in a country that they find repugnant;if they don't like it here, as the NA$CAR people say, "Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya."
I think it's time people quit whining about slavery. It's a good deal as if the Jews were demanding reparations from the descendents of Pharoah.
qwilly| 4.6.12 @ 1:40PM
This would be true if there wasnt a 13th,14th and 15th ammendment to the constitution. Im sorry you, or your family, or ancestors, got included man maybe next time.
Bill| 4.6.12 @ 1:18PM
I simply stated the facts, and I ain't no racist.
PolishKnight| 4.6.12 @ 1:42PM
Bill, as DMac points out, your comments could almost be those of a leftist provocateur out to make the right look bad. There are plenty of blacks who have contributed to this country and it's worth keeping in mind that many of them have come here freely as immigrants to make a better life for themselves and have succeeded. Ironically, blacks themselves now are victims of race politics as recent non-white, non-black immigrants have demanded special privileges for themselves at the expense of society including blacks.
I was watching a video clip of the Bill Maher show and he was excusing a black man on welfare saying that his ancestors were slaves so whites literally owed him a living. "That makes sense" he said. But it doesn't, really. There are now several generations of descendants of blacks from a relatively few black ancestorial slaves including those who are interracially mixed up with whites. Obama has zero right to any ancestrial claim of oppression since his mother was white and his father an immigrant from Kenya. Nearly all of the whites here now are descendants of immigrants who came long after slavery had ended, didn't participate in it, and were even abolitionists. Affirmative action is not even reverse discrimination (since reverse would imply it's to reduce discrimination) but rather redirected racism and sexism.
The left has successfully built up a consortium of different selfish, hypocritical special interest groups that blacks are just one small part of now. There's man hating feminists, government unionized employees (including the police and firemen whom at one time were conservative!), gays, and a whole bevy of other non-white special interest groups all with their hands out for the special privileges goodie grab.
Therefore, affirmative action is VERY important to the left since it comprises a major benefit of their ideology to retain these voters. It's amazing that conservatives have done little about this problem while focusing upon such matters as abortion or gay marriage.
Bugler| 4.6.12 @ 11:50PM
Bill| 4.6.12 @ 12:18PM
"I simply stated the facts, and I ain't no racist."
You're a liar.
RCV| 4.6.12 @ 2:08PM
Go away, Bill. You're a racist moron and you contribute nothing to intelligent debate.
Bill| 4.6.12 @ 2:12PM
Go away, RCV. You're a racist moron and you contribute nothing to intelligent debate.
Bugler| 4.6.12 @ 11:47PM
You debase the very legitimate arguments against affirmative action with your racist nonsense. You don't belong here.
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.6.12 @ 10:56AM
What If? We didn't have such things as Congressional "Black" Caucuses, "Hispanic" Caucuses, and "Asian" Caucuses? And, WHY would these Racist Congressional Enclaves, never allow a WHITE Caucus?
Only someone who only goes on Vacations to places where you need MALARIA PILLS, would be Naive enough to think that "The One we've Been Waiting For" will ever let that happen.
Only Africa's Great White Tourist would believe that the Boy raised in Indonesia's Muslim Schools and Mosques, would allow Equal Rights to all Citizens.
As somebody wrote for you, in this Story: Even though the Michigan Law School's use of Race, in Admissions, was struck down. They can still use RACE in ADMISSIONS.
The Horses are already out of the Barn. The Camel's nose is under the Tent, and I think that might be the first symptom of the Ebola Virus, there, under your arm.
I'd get that looked at, if I were you.
fiscal| 4.6.12 @ 11:03AM
Ross, aren't you going to comment on the racism you see in the responses to your article? While I agree that affirmative action has no place in today's society, the hate against blacks in the responses above is abhorrent. This attitude bespeaks the demonization of Obama as having racial undertones. While I don't think Obama is a very good President, it is not because of his race, it is because we elect people based on emotion rather than rationality and analysis.
If you want to approach affirmative action rationally, you just need to look at the numbers regarding educational attainment in the U.S. Native born Asians have the highest college graduate attainment at 48%. Whites follow at 30% with Blacks at 16% and Hispanics at 14%. Interestingly enough, immigrants in each of the races except Latinos have a higher attainment rate than their native born counterparts.
The wealthy have always had an advantage in the ability to earn wages and will continue to do so. It is less about race today and more about socio-economic level. While half a century ago affirmative action may have been warranted, today, it makes no sense. The big problem is that affirmative action attacks the problem after the fact rather than at its core.
Education is the equalizer when it comes to earning capacity for the majority of people. Yes, there are a small number of highly talented individuals who get high incomes, but this is a very small group. Poor whites today have the same problems in achievement as do poor blacks and Latino. If you really want to improve our society, you'd support education, especially in math and the sciences, for very young and insure that the best and the brightest get rewarded for merit and find a way to get a great education.
So, Ross, are you willing to live with the racially charged comments on your article?
Bob| 4.6.12 @ 11:18AM
You almost made sense, but then you had to complain about perceived racism in the comments.
You get points for trying, but better luck next time.
albert constantine jr.| 4.6.12 @ 12:01PM
Fiscal;
As of 11 am, I see one overtly racist comment here, posted by Bill, who is a troll provocateur who posts overtly racist statements nearly every day.
I often would wonder why, but when I read your opening paragraph trying to somehow link Ross Kaminsky to Bill’s remarks, I have my answer.
Are you sure you and Bill aren’t posting from the same IP?
fiscal| 4.6.12 @ 12:47PM
Actually, the responses are filled with racial comparisons regarding not only blacks, but Hispanics/immigration as well. Yes, Bill is the only one with an OVERT comment, but as long as people continue to have comments regarding racial differences, then affirmative action makes some sense. The sooner we can concentrate on INDIVIDUAL merit without any race involvement, the sooner we can get rid of obsolete things like affirmative action.
albert constantine jr.| 4.6.12 @ 1:29PM
If you truly believed your last sentence, you would not be trying to associate Ross Kaminsky with anyone else's remarks.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.7.12 @ 11:38AM
I was in a course all day on Friday and not watching the comments. There is one commenter who posts as "Bill" who posts racist remarks from time to time. I have "suppressed" his racist comment from earlier today.
I reject any association between me and a brain-dead racist troll and am I doing what I can to deal with him.
(Far more than you are aware of, I might add.)
Bob| 4.6.12 @ 11:14AM
What a surprise, Kagan actually recused herself here. She should have recused herself from the Obamacare case as well.
JJW| 4.6.12 @ 11:30AM
On all college applications, all of my children are 'hispanic". There is no legal definition of 'hispanic', there is no physical test for "hispanic". I doubt if there is such a test for being "black", unless the Democrats want to try and bring back their previous "one-drop" rules.
If university are flooded with applicants who are "hispanic", what are they going to do?
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.6.12 @ 11:44AM
Since my family came to North America from England in the early 1600s, I check the Native American box whenever I'm asked. First I refuse to check any box, then when they tell me if I won't the secretary will check a box, then I check the Native American.
I once talked to a very self-righteous lefty who, in answer to my question of how long does a people have to be in one place in order to be considered indigenous, said "since time before memory." That to me means about 75 years, give or take about 20 years. So I guess by that guy's standards, I'm a Native American.
Dmac | 4.6.12 @ 12:36PM
Being of Italian decent I've told my children to check any box that has "latin" next to it. I guess since my grandmother is half Comanche I could have advised the to also check "Native American".
Appleby| 4.6.12 @ 1:14PM
My ancestors were German, Scandinavian, French, French-Canadian, Canadian, Scotch-Irish, from Alcase-Lorraine when the Germans controlled it, Swamp Cree, Oneida, and for all I know, extraterrestrial. I can check all the boxes with perfect honesty.
RR| 4.7.12 @ 8:20AM
Due to the fact that we all come from Noah's family, what box(es) do we check?
Skippy| 4.7.12 @ 7:25PM
Whenever there is a "race" question, I check "other" and write in "human".
albert constantine jr.| 4.6.12 @ 1:32PM
In the 1980 census, I decided to be Hispanic, as the translation of my surname in Gaelic was supposed to mean descendant of the dark swarthy men. While the name predated the Black Irish of the armada, I figured the "Other" box qualified as a description of that heritage.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.6.12 @ 11:41AM
In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor's opinion said that affirmative action would last for another 25 years. That was in 2003, 9 years ago. So at most the Supreme Court can be depended on to support preferential treatment in university admissions for another 16 years.
Petronius| 4.6.12 @ 12:01PM
People in this country don't know the difference between a Right and a privilege. AA advocates are levelers. They do not believe in privilege or material inequality. This legal re-definition gives them a right to things others have earned. AA is the reason most white males are not going to college. What should have been done to defeat this expropriation scheme for allegedly oppressed minorities was to explain this simple concept. Work is a duty. Employment is a privilege. Qualification to hold a job or get admitted to schools, clubs, or organizations are the purview of those entities, not any person who whines that this is "unfair". Congress should make this the law of the land, but it won't happen. Too many lawyers would have to find another specialty for their litigation. This was a Free country. It was not intended to be a "Fair Country" regarding wealth or inclusion. The civil "rights" laws and AA has given leave to the aggrieved to invade the lives of others with full knowledge of inadequacies, and undesirable characteristics to be forced upon all who have been told by the Federal Courts to accept them on their terms. The only thing no judge can do is make us like it.
Oldefarte| 4.6.12 @ 12:30PM
Great one, Ross, as usual! I will once again express my long-held opinion concerning education in general. From the ground up, it stinks, and that's mainly so due to liberals' and Democrats' historical control over same. I'll work from the ground UP. Labor unions have, to increase their influence, infiltrated governments and therefore public school systems; and same has resulted in unqualified teachers being hired, not fired and tenured. The result is poorly educated students unable to read, write or perform simple mathmatical problems. Additionally these students learn UNDERWATER BASKET WEAVING subjects instead of READING, WRITING AND ARITHMETIC; and are socially promoted from grade to grade when they are unprepared and unqualified to do so. Okay, so they graduate and as minorities become qualified for Ross' subjected affirmative action enrollments in public universities and the aforementioned scenerio becomes duplicated. Result, they graduate from college and are unqualified educationally to obtain a nd progress in a decent paying job, since employers are reluctent to hire them unless forced to by governmental edits [another story now ignored]. It's a reverse funneling process that is detrimental not only to the students-individuals but to society at large, since if refutes the theory of THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST! Solution? Eliminate labor unions' influence within the school system, hire/promote/raise salaries of exceptionally qualified teachers, and students' educations, test scores and qualifications will drastically improve. Additionally eliminate UBW SUBJECTS within schools and concentrate on R/W/A! Allow public universities to CONSIDER/PREFER race-minority selections but not to REQUIRE same [if two equally qualified students are eligable, select the minority; otherwise select the MOST QUALIFIED REGARDLESS OF RACE]. Case closed. Alternatively WHAT IF? What if say athletic teams required affirmative action? Should non-minority athletes be able to obtain positions on teams due to affirmative action '''''fairness''''''??????????
fiscal| 4.6.12 @ 12:55PM
Perhaps if many radicals on the right believed in mathematics and science instead of ideology we'd actually have a chance of a merit based, color blind system from the conservative side of the ledger. The left has taken over the ideology of higher learning because the right doesn't think that education has value. When the right takes over local school boards, their first effort is to try and introduce religion into curriculum rather than implementing a merit based, math and science based, agenda. Perhaps that is because the people that take over local boards don't have a higher education in the first place. You do understand that a scientific approach to governance supports conservatism, don't you? Why don't we see more of it?
Lesser Weevil| 4.6.12 @ 2:38PM
You paint with an awfully broad brush, fiscal. I'd guess that a fair number of the many radicals on the right who comment here have training (and even fancy degrees) in technical fields. What the heck does it even mean to believe in math and science? Many on the left claim to "believe in" science (which I take to mean that they don't actually know it), but in fact they just pick it up as a convenient ideological cudgel when it suits them.
The right doesn't think that education has value? I'd like to see your data for that. I'd say that the right doesn't think that indoctrination is the proper aim of the educational system, and many of the local school board actions that you deride are in reaction to that.
And no, I don't understand how a "scientific approach to governance" supports conservatism. Let me try my hand at it: I form the hypothesis "large governments are invariably coercive." Hmm, OK, the data sure seems to support that. Well, now what? If I am a conservative, I say "that's bad" because a free society is my ideal; if I am a liberal, I say "that's good" because there are so many injustices that I long to correct using the power of government. Conservatism requires a moral basis, which is perhaps why many of us radicals on the right are so alarmed by the eviction of religion from the public square.
Pete| 4.6.12 @ 3:54PM
I only have a MA in Math but I lack that liberal blessing.
Mike Hawk| 4.6.12 @ 6:46PM
The 'right' believes education has value. Liberals belive in 'education' but that is their term for indoctrination.
Anthony| 4.6.12 @ 3:40PM
fiscal, you moron, you dare lecture us about science and ideology? Your religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated on mankind in its entire history.
Hey fraud, ask your lefty pals at Penn State and East Anglia Univeristy to release all of their emails and the "doctored" data that they used to support this massive hoax.
But just like Obozo, the left engages in a deliberate lies, distortions, and cover up when discovered.
When's the last time you ever heard of a conservative professor fighting the release of emails and data with the FOI, as "Professor" Mann has done? Answer: Never, except whenever a lefty "scientist" is involved and is discovered. Kinda like Obozo's birth certificate shown only on computer, and his "buried" school records.
I see a pattern here.
You wouldn't recognize higher education if it bit you in your ass.
Pete| 4.6.12 @ 3:52PM
The Left has nothing to do with science and mathematics. They problem is that they use the scientific method and logic with of course works against their cause. The Left prefers opinion courses where only their opinions matter.
Oldefarte| 4.6.12 @ 4:20PM
Your statement of '...When the right takes over local school boards, their first effort is to try and introduce religion into curriculum rather than implementing a merit based, math and science based, agenda...' is pure BS, since the right does not have the ability presently to do so. School boards are controlled by labor unionized teachers etc and that is the simple fact of why they are failures. Obviously you're referring to RELIGION versus EVOLUTION, which is not the issue here, so shove your liberalized BS in the waste basket. The subject is whether or not education is successful at instructing/teaching its pupils, and the answer is NO! Again, read my above. Your MATH and SCIENCE is part of the equation that also includes English, as opposed to MINORITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO HISTORY/SOCIETY courses now being taught [which is why so-called graduates are so stupid and ignorant]!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.6.12 @ 4:25PM
fecal: you may wish to discover that ya boy's [Al Gore] TV network is now being legally sued by their fired Olbermann......seem ol Environmental [Math & Science] Al can't even successfully run his own TV network profitably [typical of a loser]!!!!!
Petronius| 4.6.12 @ 11:08PM
Simple fisc. Our happiness and prosperity is dependent on how those we must live with BEHAVE! Predators, perverts, and parasites are a bane to our existence because we don't have enough money to insulate ourselves from them. Would you or your children want to be terrorized by such people? See how you like paying the social cost in treasury, property, and blood.
Bugler| 4.7.12 @ 12:19AM
fiscal| 4.6.12 @ 11:55AM
Dood, this is just stupid.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.7.12 @ 11:41AM
That's utterly ridiculous.
I'm sure you consider me part of the right. I care deeply about education (as most Jews do). The left does far more damage to school curricula than the right does.
A "scientific" approach to governance is exactly what has been proposed by "Progressives" since the founding of their movement.
Proper governance is not about science -- once you get there, then it becomes government by whoever claims to be the biggest expert.
Proper governance is about principles of liberty as enshrined in our constitution. It doesn't need a PhD to understand it.
I suggest, "fiscal", that you don't really understand American's Founding principles.
Seek| 4.6.12 @ 12:56PM
Reality check: Affirmative action, far from being foreign to MLK's dream, was central to it. He openly favored it during the last few years of his life; e.g., his interview with Playboy.
alabama yankee| 4.7.12 @ 2:38PM
The ultimate irony is that if we really did implement MLK's dream of judging them by the content of their character, in six months they'd be begging us to judge them by the color of their skin.
RichTex| 4.6.12 @ 1:17PM
Affirmative action is only the most visible manifestation of the racism inherent in modern-day liberalism. At its core, liberalism is based upon the premise that minorities and the poor simply cannot take care of themselves. They must have the help and guidance of the benighted, elite (white) liberal in order to survive in this modern world. Everything from affirmative action to welfare is based upon this principle.
Fredx| 4.6.12 @ 10:07PM
Apparently the only part of Darwinism that liberals don't understand is Survival of the Fittest.
Petronius| 4.7.12 @ 4:21PM
They do understand it Fred. That's why they Hate it. They use it as a vehicle to subsidize the deficiencies of the losers because They Hate Winners!
sablegsd| 4.7.12 @ 1:51AM
If a person is too stupid to get through college on their own merits, then dig ditches.
And, it's been proven a college education doesn't mean squat. Cost goes up, value goes down.
Marc Jeric| 4.7.12 @ 3:55AM
Racial profiling is illegal, except in affirmative action, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusiveness cases. Logical, isn't it?
Appleby| 4.7.12 @ 8:08AM
Oh, and by the way, it's no use passing laws that people cannot be identified by race in newspaper stories, and then name your children Afrodytee and Antjuan and Caesar and Napoleon.
The reaction in our household when we see "Among those arrested were Afridytee Thigpen and Napoleon Bonaparte Jones" our first instinct is not to say, "Oh, obviously Chinese."
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.7.12 @ 9:12AM
You are so right, Appleby. My favorite one is Anferney. That's Ebonics for Anthony. Then there's Kashika, Kuwanda, and Mamalookabubaday.
What's up with that? I thought these people went to Church? What happened to their CHRISTIAN names? Washington Carver. Martin Luther King. Thomas Sowell. Walter E. Williams. Ernie Banks. Henry Aaron. Jackie Robinson. Aretha Franklin. Diana Ross. Oprah Winfrey. Halley Berry.
Sticking the African Street Gang moniker on these kids, is not doing them any favours. If they want these kind of names? Let do it the right way. Let them change their own name when they get Locked Up, like all the other ones do.
You know, like Cop Killer: Larry Davis, who now goes by one of those Religion of Peace names. Or like another Cop Killer - Malik Abu Jamal - (or whatever the fck this POS's name is) - aka Jerry Gibson. (Whatever)
I think that the Jungle Names are only making things worse.
spike59| 4.9.12 @ 7:32AM
people who are obsessed with other peoples' names are hardly (if at all) more intelligent than those obsessed with race
Ross Kaminsky | 4.7.12 @ 12:16PM
Some people might say that identifying by race in a newspaper article has overtones of racism, but it can work the other way as well with PC refusal to identify by race simply being a way of refusing to discuss a particular segment of society's particular issues.
Oldefarte| 4.7.12 @ 4:44PM
Ross, if the avoidance of a racial ID within the MSM concerning crimes is now practiced for PC purposes, a road trip to the nearest prison/jail that would easily ID the majority racial composition of those incarcerated would seem to be a possible solution to the confusion.
Sweep the leg| 4.7.12 @ 12:36PM
"Mike" King's dream was for set asides, affirmative action, and reparations.
Can we please stop with the Marty King dream thing? It is no longer necessary to reference this one quote, in order to prove your anti-racist bona fides. I fact, as more and more learn about King's real agenda (his files are STILL sealed for a while longer), quoting this plagiarizer becomes all the more silly.
Marc Jeric| 4.8.12 @ 1:48PM
I thought that racial profiling was illegal. On the other hand the affirmative action, multiculturalism, inclusiveness, and diversity drives are all based on racial profiling!
Michele San Pietro| 4.8.12 @ 1:58PM
Affirmative action is simply a monstrosity, it shouldn't be considered under any circumstances whatsoever.
topeka| 4.9.12 @ 10:35AM
Ross,
Impressive article. You've a good handle on reading SCOTUS tea leaves.
My quibble: Overly optimistic.
The SCOTUS decision will have no impact on the nation's many "gatekeeper" offices - from welfare offices to human resources... to college admissions. The gatekeepers will keep their axe grinding stones, their biases, and prejudices, and their knowledge of how to "play" the system. And they will continue employing these.
And this "systemic error" will consistently root out those who are unable, unqualified, or unwilling to play the game. Whether for being the wrong color, sex, religion, or just the wrong profession.
To the Left this is not a problem: If you are a brilliant whatever, (or if you're incredibly poor and dying of cancer) your qualifications are irrelevant compared to their fantasy-ideologies.
So... I applaud your optimism. And I am sure that some day, decades from now, some not-white, not-males may enjoy the "freedom" to not be classified. But I'm not holding my breath.
Keep up the good work, and despite my pessimism, stay optimistic. We have to have those will to fight hopeless causes.
;-)
Ceinture Bally | 4.10.12 @ 6:25AM
i like it