Rush Limbaugh says the affirmative action brief still keeps promoting race preference and its bad

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 1/17/2003 | Rush Limbaugh Showi

[B Knotts]

The thing I don't understand is: why?

I mean, his speech ALREADY ticked off all the race hustlers, liberals, etc.

It's not like they're going to now be on Bush's side because they read the brief and realize that he's not really taking on anti-white racial discrimination all together.

What's the strategery here?

[Reagan Man]

bump

[krodriguesdc]

and it is color blind

it is not color blind, as it agrees with the need for affirmative action in certain situations!

[aristeides]

Well, the system does have at least one good point, as well: by rewarding good grades (even if at bad schools,) it provides black and Hispanic students an incentive to get good grades. Maybe that will change the atmosphere some in the schools where they predominate.

[Miss Marple]

OK. Let's say that you have a business which has NEVER hired a black person, even though they have received thousands of resumes from qualified applicants. What is the remedy in this case?

[krodriguesdc]

What's the strategery here?

that's the big problem - to h*ll with strategy to gain votes, and not offend this one or that one - we need leadership not strategy!

[krodriguesdc]

someone who wants to work is the remedy!

you seem to be making the assumption that a business owner is not hiring because of racial prejudice...

on what do you base this assumption - statistics?

[TLBSHOW]

Hmmm. Should I trust Ted Olson or Rush Limbaugh with the solicitor's job?


This is a discussion board besides a News Forum. Discuss it. Who should you believe? Who ever you want to. I would think.

But my opinion is end affirmative action once and for all. It was started by a democrat with the intention to never end it. That enough tells me its no good, but there are plenty of other reasons its a worthless law!

[B Knotts]

I agree that morality and ethics should be the guiding principles on decisions like this.

But, to the extent that there is a strategery, I'm just asking: shouldn't that strategery make some sense? This one seems to be the opposite of one that would actually work (e.g., make an "inclusive, diverse" speech, and file a brief that takes a principled position against all race-based preferences).

[hchutch]

The strategery is to shift to things away from any admissions (or hiring) system that makes the judgement on race, particularly when it involves a government entity (university or agency). Things need to be based on an objective standard.

[MatthewViti]

Bush Bot

[Stingray51]

Right, but I was trying to make a general point. Obviously, there are lousy all-white schools just as there are lousy minority schools. On average, nationwide, schools with high percentages of minorities demonstrate worse performance (of course, there can be many factors causing that which have nothing to do with the quality of the schools). Even if you take the racial component out, you are left with discrimination against good, but not top, students at good schools in favor of objectively less qualified top students at the worst schools. This may not be racial discrimination (even though that is clearly its purpose) but it is unjustified discrimination nonetheless.

[aristeides]

Even if you take the racial component out, you are left with discrimination against good, but not top, students at good schools in favor of objectively less qualified top students at the worst schools.

However, this is unlike racial discrimination in that the victims of it are not helpless against it. There is something they can do. They can, for example, transfer to a school which is less good.

Maybe it's not a good idea to give students an incentive to do that. I suspect it is not a good idea. But it's less odious than racial discrimination because there are responses that are possible.

[rdf]

Here is the link to Olson's briefs in the two cases.

Grutter v. Bollinger

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/grutter/grutterum11603brf.pdf

+++

Gratz v. Bollinger

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/gratz/gratzum11603brf.pdf

Cheers,

Richard F.

[Cyber Liberty]

"This is a discussion board..."

I thank God that you're here to tell me that. All these years, and I've been off mark all this time.

Thanks, dude!

[TLBSHOW]

:>) Your welcome and I am glad I could clear that up for you.

[justshe]

Whom would I wish to listen to on Constitutional Law? Ted Olsen...or Rush? Decisions, decisions...

Then throw in that OTHER legal expert, Michelle Malkin, and it becomes a REAL conundrum.

Of course, the poster of this article who was GIDDY re: the President's decision a few days ago, will face his own conundrum should Ann Coulter weigh-in as PRO-President Bush on this issue.

Decisions, decisions, whose beliefs to espouse?