Affirmative Action defeated in Michigan

It is a really big problem. The group that put up the proposal is known as the MCRI. Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Sounds good right? Wrong. Their whole goal is to actually ROLL BACK civil rights. Retarded, I know. One large problem we could see, that CA also saw, is not that schools will be come less diverse through the application process; but rather that schools will lose applicants. Many minorities will feel that if our State screwed them, then they will screw us (for lack of better words). Many people will just not even bother to apply here, and will go elsewhere. Same with high ranking professors, scientists, researchers etc. Many are so well qualified, they can go anywhere. The ones belonging to minorities will just up and leave, knowing that they don't want to be in a State that shot down AA.

Now, I have no idea whether or not this will happen, but it did in California. I also realize that many people who voted yes may have a different opinion, but I think many of them were uneducated. Not only will this prop cause problems, it also makes it incredibly difficult to make any reformations in the future.

So we'll see what happens, all in all I think it is a very bad thing that could hurt us, but I may be way off. Who knows, only time will tell.

actually their goal is a colorblind society.

Anyone from california care to comment on how it affected colleges there? I'd like to hear it from a less biased source than my campus newspaper.

Pretty sure that's everyone's goal. The question up for debate is whether affirmative action is the path to eventually achieving it. Personally I'm against affirmative action. But it's far from a closed matter, especially in a state like Michigan.

Good. Preferences should be determined by individual circumstances (like income, etc.) and not by your majority/minority group.

Or, gee, here's a novel idea: how about by competence?

Which would be listed under "individual circumstances." Thanks for playing.

Pretty sure there's a difference when I'm denying that peoples' incomes should affect their being considered for positions. Poor or not, family to support or not, if there's someone better for the job that person should get it. Ethic of Care theory is bunk imo. Extra moral consideration shouldn't be extended to people just because they're vulnerable.

Oh right, I forgot my obligatory snide, arrogant little addition.

Ahem.

Thanks for playing.

affirmative action blows.....no way should retard indians and dumb black people be able to get to go to the same schools as smart white people...notice i left out chinese though, because they blow white people out of the water in smartness

harvard comes to mind.

i don't like affirmative action, if a society is to truly be equal then we shouldn't have to hire people because of their colour and not their qualifications. in a sense affirmative action is racist because it gives off the persona that we are helping minorities to get a job because we think they are disadvantaged due to their skin colour and that we should cut them a break. well personally thats bullshit. minorities complain about everything racist and love to play the race card, but if its to their advantage then they shut up, but they are still too blind to recognize that affirmative action discriminates. it is pretty much a double standard.

i think it sucks that it passed personally.  i'm not saying affirmative action is perfect, and especially it wasn't previously, but i definitely think that it is needed.

and even though the daily is really biased, the fact that minority admittance into UC-Berkeley dropped 60% after they passed their proposal is hard to put any spin on.

My statement was more general and my note of income was referring to other aspects that don't include occupation. You know, thinks like education and other social benefits. There is already a good collection of laws that allow the granting of working opportunities towards a disadvantaged citizen. You also don't need to tell me about obligatory snide and arrogant comments either Mr. Kettle.

what do you mean by that?

My original comment about denying extra moral consideration to those less fortunate stands, because I don't believe it's a morally relevant difference. I realize that sounds draconian and conservative, but I never considered myself a bleeding heart liberal, just a rational one.

As for the last sentence there, hey, I wasn't the one who got the ball rolling in this thread... I assume by calling me "Mr. Kettle" that you are appropriately casting yourself in the role of the Pot here?

I see Affirmative action as a double-sword. yeah it's good to keep companies and shit in check, and not allowing them to hire only one race. On the other hand, when a kid from a similar income bracket, and simliar intelligence gets more financial aid and scholarships for college just because he's black; i scream bullshit.

So then I would take it you're not a fan of social programs? Like an academic booster program for example? Or are you taking a middle ground? If the later is the case, here we are arguing over next to nothing.

And not that the pot/kettle comment makes any difference. My point is the same. We've both been arrogant before and we both know it. I can let it go.