I applaud the Supreme Court for ruling that merit should come before preferential treatment. We are not helping minorities by applying different LOWER standards to their admissions to colleges and universities, and in hiring and job promotions. We are consigning a generation of minority youth into believing that because of their ethnicity they are entitled to special privileges. This has made white students at colleges and universities across our country assume that their fellow classmates got where they are because of their color and not because of their ability and in the long run this harms and does not help those who truly need assistance.

Every ethnic group that came to America suffered substantial discrimination from Jews, Irish, and Italians, and Asian Americans. None of these groups ever demanded to be put ahead of other more qualified people and they instead relied on their own hard work and efforts to succeed. They raised their children on the merits of hard work and getting an education and not in idolizing rappers and people who can put a basketball thru a hoop. They taught their children the value of achieving success based on their efforts, not on their being giving special privileges or being entitled.

Things have turned so far the other way in America that in our good intentions to address the evils of past discrimination we have bent over backwards in not only allowing people into college who clearly could not be accepted on their own to promoting people to jobs over other more qualified employees. Instead of addressing past wrongs this further inflames racist beliefs.

The only persons who should be given assistance are those economically disadvantaged or physically or mentally disabled. Promotions on the job should be based on something old fashioned we used to have in America called ability to perform and track record on the job, not on the color of one's skin. A truly color blind society is one in which there are no more racial preferences, where students taking the college boards do not have to check a block listing whether they are Caucasion, African American, Hispanic, or American Indian before they take the test, and where those applying for job promotions and raises have their performance based on what they've done to merit an increase or new job title, not on what their skin pigmentation is.

If you can't spot the deeply believed racism in your post, mjkoch, it's no wonder you can't see the continuing need for remedies for your sickness.

...They raised their children on the merits of hard work and getting an education and not in idolizing rappers and people who can put a basketball thru a hoop....

I applaud the Supreme Court for ruling that merit should come before preferential treatment. We are not helping minorities by applying different LOWER standards to their admissions to colleges and universities, and in hiring and job promotions. We are consigning a generation of minority youth into believing that because of their ethnicity they are entitled to special privileges. This has made white students at colleges and universities across our country assume that their fellow classmates got where they are because of their color and not because of their ability and in the long run this harms and does not help those who truly need assistance.

Jesus F. Christ: Are you behind the times! Racial spoils were made illegal in the 1970s--over thirty goddamn years ago. Nobody of any race is lawfully getting promoted or admitted to college unless they are qualified for the job.

That you think it is still legal is a result of your lack attention to what's been going on for decades.

The only persons who should be given assistance are those economically disadvantaged or physically or mentally disabled.

What about veterans, the elderly, immigrants and the hundreds of other classifications in American law that benefit the individuals in one group or another. What you are really saying is that race shouldn't be considered. Why not race, if it is relevant to the purpose being considered: diversity being the obvious example? What's wrong with that so long as---as the law requires, the candidate be qualified for selections. Is our history of racial hate so bad that we have to pretend races doesn't even exist as a matter of law?

I'm tempted to say that the bend over backward horseshit you are spouting off about is complete nonesense since the law hasn't allowed consideration of race except for legitimate pedagogical and workplace interests for over thirty years, but there is stupidity in the world: As New Haven proves. Rant about stupidity, if you will: but please don't go shouting that the apple cart should be turned over because somebody of a different color is getting something you are not.

Some times the truth hurts, doesn't it?

mjkoch, You have shown an incredible lack of understanding of U.S. history and the importance of social networks. We hold a standard of getting ahead by merit, but it does not always happen that way. All of the groups you mentioned used strategies to help their own as part of the process to get ahead. I am glad that education, experience, and merit play a big part in success in the U.S., but your portrayal is a myth.

From the nasty reactions here you'd think that mjkoch was arguing for the return of anti-miscegenation laws, not making reasonable arguments for a truly color-blind society.

You can be a racist for advocating race-blind policies? Really? Which of Orwell's books gave us that idea?

Racial preferences disappeared in the 1970's? You don't have to look far to see that that's not true. Of course, some of the prejudices and many of the group inequalities that inspired compensatory preferences are, unfortunately, still with us too.

The main thing is that we won't solve society's problems by insulting those who propose well-intentioned solutions.

Thank you. You are exactly correct. I am for a truly color blind society but when the left wing gets involved all they know how to do is to trash someone who does not agree with their opinion which shows how empty their opinion is. As Obama says, "you can disagree without being disagreeable and nasty." There are those on the Left who want affirmative action in place forever and they cannot see the damage it is doing. We need to have one standard for admitting kids into colleges and one standard for job promotions. The standard should be what have done to earn this? The color of ones skin should never be the determining factor. Your grades, college boards, extracurricular activities should determine college and your performance on the job along with any tests should be the determining factor in promotions. It is dumbing down our country and allowing other countries to whip us competively when we allow kids into colleges that should not be there and when we promote people to jobs they are not qualified for. In sports there is no affirmative action and Blacks excelled way beyond their numbers in the general population because of ability and hard work and we have a President who clearly has shown is one of the most intelligent Presidents in our history. People CAN succeed at the highest levels without being giving unfair advantages. The problem is that the liberals look at a white person and assume they have all the advantages and that is not true.

Our country wll eventually go from the #1 economy in the world to #3 and part of the reason is that we are promoting incompetent, unqualified, undeserving people and that is just plain wrong. Discrimination IS terribly wrong but you don't redress the evils of discrimination by blatantly discriminating against others. It will end up harming us all.

octobia:

If you can't spot the deeply believed racism in your post, mjkoch, it's no wonder you can't see the continuing need for remedies for your sickness.

...They raised their children on the merits of hard work and getting an education and not in idolizing rappers and people who can put a basketball thru a hoop....

Fine - let's take out the line about basketball and rappers. Now deal with the rest of it, genius. Uh, oh- might have to think a bit, this time.

Stating facts is not racism. The Black community has embraced as it's idols Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Alan Iverson, and rappers who denigrate women. Barack Obama is the first positive role model Blacks have embraced and that is not racism, it's a fact. There are plenty of Black judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, computer wizards, biologists, chemists, engineers, etc etc that are worth of praise and adulation but the Black community has made their heroes (before Obama) rappers and sports stars and that's a fact. When you worship at the altar of Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, rappers and basletball players it does not further your society. There are great role models in the Black community who are being ignored and if stating the truth is racism, so be it.

You can be a racist for advocating race-blind policies? Really? Which of Orwell's books gave us that idea?

You guys aren't advocating a race-blind society: you are arguing for a society where the law compels private citizens not to consider race. Race is here: it exists as a natural and social fact, just as does height, weight, eye color, intellegence and social skills.

You may be assuming that there is a racial spoils system working in America. If you pay attention to people like Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Jackson you can get that impression....but only if you are ignorant about the law itself. Race cannot be the basis of workplace or educational decisions. Race can be one of many considerations, the first of which is that the candidate selected must qualified for the selection; then race can only be considered if it serves a legitimate pedogogical or workplace purpose and if the means by which race is considered is narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.

Schools have determined that having a diverse student body enriches the educational experience for all the students. Do you deny that is a legitimate pedogogical interest?

Some workplaces have determined that the race of a qualified candidate can serve a legitimate workplace purpose. Police departments with officers all of one race enforcing the law in cities where most citizens are of other races find that legitimate workplace purposes are served by deversifying the population of police officers: purposes such as community support for the department as a whole and effectiveness of the department in execution of its duties.

The mechanical legal formulation "race-blind" is a purposeful self-blinding of the law to facts that exist in society. Moreover, because it has the effect of working against American racial minorities and because race alone as an individual human characteristic is to be--by legal mandate, ignored, your proposal is discriminatory.

I know its counter-intuitive, but it is true. Using the law to insist people ignore realities they must deal with is a bad idea. Race-blind is a nice sounding slogan, but it isn't what it sounds like. Its effect is exactly the opposite: On top of that its an irrational thing to urge. The law ought to be rational.

Issywise - It sounds like we're all shooting for the same goals here, but we disagree on the methods.

The law may have ruled out ethnic spoils, how can we say that those rules are enforced when state and city governments specify how much public money must go to minority-owned businesses? You can be ignorant of the law and still well aware of the way we keep score when it comes to race, from private sector hiring, to public sector contracting, to Supreme Court nominations.

It's worth noting that arguments for and against purely race-blind legislation are sometimes co-opted by people to benefit 'their people'. I don't think any on this thread are so cynical, but the "...one of many considerations..." exceptions for counting race seem well-suited to such tactics.

how can we say that those rules are enforced when state and city governments specify how much public money must go to minority-owned businesses?

That would be unconstitutional. Any criteria that considers race must be narrowly tailored. Equal protection is a fundamental right. Set asides and quotas are inherently not narrowly tailored.

However, you have a valid point if you limit it to local governments acting stupidly in variation from the law. That does not justify changing the law, only enforcing it.

The University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy that was vacated a few years ago shows that people ain't perfect. While its law school had a perfectly legal, narrowly tailored program for diversity, the undergraduate school just awarded "admission points" for race--a racial spoil. It was struck by the court and thereby all schools gained clarification on the law.

The Ricci case was different. The caselaw, dominated by the conservative justices on the SC, was running very much for supporting the discretion of the employers. That's what Sotomayor had to work with when the case came to her. The Supremes changed direction and added new law that says the employers must also consider race (not just workplace need) when they change a criteria because of Title VII. It is kind of common sense, but it wasn't where the law went before last month's decision.

It's worth noting that arguments for and against purely race-blind legislation are sometimes co-opted by people to benefit 'their people'. I don't think any on this thread are so cynical, but the "...one of many considerations..." exceptions for counting race seem well-suited to such tactics.

Are you saying we should adopt an irrational law because some people might abuse a rational one? What's your point. It sounds like you've backed up to a "welll......he does it too" argument. The notion that the law must require everbody to ignore race is stupid. Sure we have a history of abusing one another because of race, but that's no reason to adopt a legal rule that violates common sense and cannot help but be a burden in the real world.

I also wish to mention that I admire your handle: Cornholio. I wish I'd have thought of it. I'd like to see some comic book company pick it up for some superhero and then we could have movies like "Cornholio and the Gravitational Singularity." I started to use the more common name for a gravitational singularity, but I realized it might not be so appropriate here.

There some guy posting somewhere who calls himself the "Mayor of Moronia." What a great handle!

Issywise - I meant to suggest that "...one of many considerations..." exceptions wind up serving as a camel's nose under a tent - tough to keep the fight for racial spoils out when racial criteria are allowed in any capacity. Good to have the Feds cracking down on these exceptions.

It's not clear to me that we can ever be race blind. As you point out, racial classifications, histories, suspicions, discomforts - they're all here and we can't wish them away. And if we try to enforce total blindness we may just ignore continuing problems (in education, hiring/promotions, access to personal credit, etc.). I'm tempted toward metaphors involving gardens and weeding.

Thanks for the compliment on the handle. I was surprised to find it available. Too juvenile for most Fray participants, maybe.