mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
race and justice
A Silver Lining for Conservatives in the Affirmative Action Ruling?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Pete

    Affirmative action exists because blacks can’t intellectually compete on a level playing field.

    • Anthony

      Pete, you’re wrong and, more importantly, the confusion introduced by the ways opponents of affirmative action (consciously or unconsciously) gloss over the seriousness and the consequences of racist white attitudes toward colored minorities interferes with clear view of the issues at stake – now I am neither engaging in content of post nor defending a Supreme Court edict but responding to an error of categorization. My point is not to advocate for a position, Pete, but to facilitate legitimate discussion about how we choose to frame an idea (action) roiling with “objective correlation”.

      As an aside, in 1979 a professor informed that arguments against affirmative action rest on confusion and the country to set things (issue at contention) straight has to reduce “confusion”. We’re still here.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Modern black culture cannot compete, that is a huge different from the members of that culture.

    • GS

      While the American black population has its median IQ 85 and σ about 13, it still contains some far right-shoulderers [say, IQ 140+). These can compete without meeting with any significant problems. But their proportion to the total mass of American black population is different [it is much smaller] from the same proportion in, say, the East Asians or caucasoids.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    To be American is to acknowledge that all races, creeds, and sexes are treated equally under the law. Those people that preface their description of themselves as (fill in the blank) Americans in order to defraud some monetary advantage, can’t be Americans for the simple fact that they aren’t color-blind, creed-blind, or sex-blind. In fact to place their race, creed, or sex before they call themselves Americans, is an admission of their bigotry.

    The focus by Leftists on diversity, as somehow intrinsically a good thing, stands in direct opposition to the demonstrated record of the most successful Western Cultures, and in particular mankind’s bleeding edge American Culture. By this I mean diversity is at best irrelevant. It’s a person’s culture which determines whether or not and how successful they will be. To the extent that people are exposed to inferior cultures and adopt its attributes, diversity can be a very bad thing doing significant damage to a person’s future. As an example, lets say someone adopts the backward “Islamic Culture”, rejects the “Rule of Law” in favor of Sharia Law, goes on Jihad, and suicide bombs a public place murdering dozens of people? Isn’t that diversity? How is that a good thing?

    • Anthony

      Jacksonian Libertarian, the case (implied in your comment) against Affirmative Action is attractive. It is pro-equality (if not opposed by your name the group), grounded in the Constitution, against discrimination and prejudice, mindful of past injuries, protective of private freedom against governmental intervention, and rooted in a commitment to equal opportunity and the rule of law (merit). Indeed, the aforementioned (as implied in your comment) are no mean goods and they claim a place (ideally) in the very core of democratic values.

      On the other hand (and this is major) for all the apparent plausibility of your inference, it implies a false and dangerous conclusion. The conclusion is false because the inference is flawed at several points: 1) it takes inadequate account of our historical problem; 2) racially neutral solution that it implies is neither practiced nor currently probable; and 3) the confusion it implies between the ideal of equality of opportunity and its hold on the American imagination.

      Finally, left/right designations may be superfluous.

      • GS

        It has to be race-blind. Whether it would be race-neutral [with regard to the outcomes] or not, should not matter – most probably, it will not. For example, the optimal anatomical build for a marathoner is mostly found in East Africans and their descendants. It does not follow from anywhere, nor does it agree with the observable reality, that all human capacities and abilities are distributed equally among all 10 genetic races [“clusters” by Sforza-Cavalli]. Say, the visuospatial ability is concentrated among the Arctic people and East Asians. The others also could have it [it is not exclusively concentrated ], but for the others it is less frequent.

        • Anthony

          If I understand you, I recognize genome work but I was specifically addressing JL’s implications. Still, we must be careful about hasty conclusions and faulty connections.

          • GS

            By using the race-blind approach there would be no faux ‘connections”. Yes, the impact could well be “disparate”. And so what? “Diversity”, in and of itself, is NOT a value. I am yet to meet anyone who could cogently explain to me the “value” of it. A Larry Bird would still make it big in the NBA.

          • Anthony

            OK, got your position thanks.

          • GS

            It applies to almost any known aptitude whatsoever – be it intellectual, be it physical, be it sociopathical (like law obedience), be it sexual performance, or being good with the money. Every group has a different spectrum.

          • Anthony

            Move on!

          • GS

            I am a scientist by profession. Hence what I am after is not the “newness” but the truth, even if that truth is not especially new or fashionable. For novelty’s sake one could wear a condom instead of a hat, and a stupidity [albeit a novel one] it would be.

          • Anthony

            You’ve told us numerous times about your background (technical) but I am suggesting ( you as an emigre) may need to refocus. I’m done here.

          • GS

            As if I were blind. I have been observing those around me, and (naturally) I was noting who was smart and apt and who was not. By now I have observed quite a few, and my conclusions parallel those of Richard Lynn.

          • Anthony

            We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin color, hair type, body proportions, etc. Equally, IQ (Richard Lynn et al aside) is meaningless too as sole measure. Old argument, GS, but self-serving bias being what it is, people may come down where they believe their interests lies (how’s that for scientific integrity).

            By the way, Via Media (TAI) has had extensive commentary exchanges on this subject matter years ago. I suggests you check archived material if you have further need to discuss.

          • GS

            It is so “meaningless” that you, sir, are an ignoramus.

  • Fat_Man

    Affirmative action is just another ploy in the ruling elite’s strategy of divide and rule. They will continue until they have ghettoized, impoverished, and demoralized all of the lower classes. The only things that can stop them are the national bankruptcy they are building into the structure of the Federal government, or the shooting war they may create by their relentless culture war attacks on what is still a majority of the country.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The court, wisely, did not allow “affirmative action” to be further diminished in America as dirty words or joke words, a trend we had been seeing and a trend which most conservatives would have preferred to be continued.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service