Replies

Reposting something I wrote a few days ago:

Affirmative Action (AA) is explicit racially-preferential treatment, in violation of the 15th Amendment. AA proponents say that racial preferences are fine, as long as the proper race benefits. How is this any different than the thinking of the [vile] Jim Crow supporters?
Discrimination undoubtedly exists today, on both sides of the aisle. However, those minorities who are victims of racial discrimination have legal recourse to address their loss. AA is done with the sanction of law, ie institutionalized racism, and leaves those who are discriminated against without any legal recourse.
AA proponents say that, in school admissions, many other factors are used to make the class roster, including parentage (legacies), activities, memberships, etc., so why not race? Well, using race as a factor is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Parentage, membership, and activities are not. If you think they shouldn't be, then amend the Constitution. If you think race should be, then vote to repeal the 14th Amendment.
"Protected classes" of individuals, who can legally be given preferential treatment, include all minorities, the handicapped, homosexuals, and women. They comprise 73% of the population, an overwhelming majority. Only people who, by the mere accident of their birth, are straight-white-males who are not handicapped get excluded. They comprise only 27% of the population... a distinct minority. How is this system of special treatment for the majority 73% and the lack of equal rules for a small minority 27% any different than the Jim Crow South?
What ever happened to Dr. King's desire to be judged "by the content of [our] character, and not the color of [our] skin"?
The interesting thing is that every time racially divisive rules are instituted, it leads to violence (Civil War, 60's race riots, etc), and every time the side favoring race-neutral rules has won. Let's pray it doesn't come to violence, and if it does, let's pray that the streak continues.
While debating this issue before my Criminal Law (Professor Henry Karlson) classes one day, a black student said, "Any black who is against AA is shooting themselves in the foot." My reply was that many blacks don't need AA since they have the talent to succeed without it. My friend's reply was far better. He asked, "Does that mean that every white who was for repealing Jim Crow laws was shooting themselves in the foot?"
What is it about Democrats that make them want to divide people by race? In days gone by, they were for keeping blacks down with these rules, today, they are for keeping whites down this way. Recall that slavery was ended by Republicans, Democrats vetoed Slavery Reparations back when they were relevant, Jim Crow Laws were passed by Democrats (including the first American gun control laws, passed so that blacks would not be able to defend themselves while they were being lynched), the Japanese internment camps in WWII were instituted by Democrats (they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House at the time), the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by a higher number and higher percentage of Republicans even though JFK’s Congress was Democrat-controlled.