lummy 4 #51 November 25, 2008 QuoteThere's no quota mandated by the government. I could be wrong but I thought there was some type of quota. My experience was with local and county gvts and a woman owned business. I seem to remember that the local and county gvt had to award a certain % of the contracts to WMBE in order to maintain their funding.I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #52 November 25, 2008 I understand the purpose of AA which is to try to level the playing field for minorities but I think that AA is still discrimination. The only way (IMO) to not discriminate based on race is to remove race from the equation.I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #53 November 25, 2008 well, does anyone know what the actual laws say? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #54 November 25, 2008 Quotewell, does anyone know what the actual laws say? It varies widely between states and institutions. Some states are different to the point that previous forced desegregation laws are considered in determining validity. In 2000, Florida banned race as a factor in college admissions. Then, in 2003, the supreme court ruled that the University of Michigan can still use race as a factor for selecting students. Most recently, Parents v Seattle and Meredith v Jefferson were successful in determining AA was unfair in their school systems. There's a lot of stuff in here from different states. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 November 25, 2008 QuoteOK but the false assumption is that Affirmative Action is a government mandate to have a certain quota of blacks or whomever, and you have to fill that quota whether you can find qualified people or not. That is simply untrue. There's no quota mandated by the government. I take it that you're unfamiliar with the Bakke case, then, as well as the Detroit firefighters that sued the city over hiring quotas.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #56 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK but the false assumption is that Affirmative Action is a government mandate to have a certain quota of blacks or whomever, and you have to fill that quota whether you can find qualified people or not. That is simply untrue. There's no quota mandated by the government. I take it that you're unfamiliar with the Bakke case, then, as well as the Detroit firefighters that sued the city over hiring quotas. Bakke outlawed quotas in college admissions. The decision of the Court was announced by Justice Lewis Powell on June 23, 1978. The court ruled 5-4 that race could be only one of numerous factors used by discriminatory boards, such as those of college admissions. Powell found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against non-minority applicants. Powell, however, stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. He cited the Harvard College Admissions Program which had been filed as an amicus curiae as an example of a constitutionally valid affirmative action program which took into account all of an applicant's qualities including race in a "holistic review". The decision was split with four justices firmly against all use of race in admissions processes, four justices for the use of race in university admissions, and Justice Powell, who was against the UC Davis Medical School quota system of admission, but found that universities were allowed to use race as a factor in admission. Title VI of the civil rights statute prohibits discrimination in any institution that receives federal funding. Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, and Stevens supported this view and supported Bakke's side of the case. Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and White did not like this strict scrutiny and tolerated this violation because of the socio-political ramifications. The nature of this split opinion created controversy over whether Powell's opinion was binding. However, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion, rejecting "quotas", but allowing race to be one "factor" in college admissions to meet the compelling interest of "diversity". ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #57 November 25, 2008 Correct. And Gratz vs. Bollinger was one of the worst decisions in the last 50 years SCOTUS has made. Kelo vs New London was far worse. YOU going to tell us why judging people by their race is acceptable to the left, Sir John? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #58 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere's no quota mandated by the government. I could be wrong but I thought there was some type of quota. My experience was with local and county gvts and a woman owned business. I seem to remember that the local and county gvt had to award a certain % of the contracts to WMBE in order to maintain their funding. state of illinois has tax refunds and other incentives to support minority contractors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #59 November 25, 2008 Quote Correct. And Gratz vs. Bollinger was one of the worst decisions in the last 50 years SCOTUS has made. Kelo vs New London was far worse. YOU going to tell us why judging people by their race is acceptable to the left, Sir John? Strawman - who's judging?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #60 November 25, 2008 Quote Quote Correct. And Gratz vs. Bollinger was one of the worst decisions in the last 50 years SCOTUS has made. Kelo vs New London was far worse. YOU going to tell us why judging people by their race is acceptable to the left, Sir John? Strawman - who's judging? Powell, however, stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. They're judging who is better suited to attend. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #61 November 27, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Correct. And Gratz vs. Bollinger was one of the worst decisions in the last 50 years SCOTUS has made. Kelo vs New London was far worse. YOU going to tell us why judging people by their race is acceptable to the left, Sir John? Strawman - who's judging? Powell, however, stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. They're judging who is better suited to attend. No it isn't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #62 November 27, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Correct. And Gratz vs. Bollinger was one of the worst decisions in the last 50 years SCOTUS has made. Kelo vs New London was far worse. YOU going to tell us why judging people by their race is acceptable to the left, Sir John? Strawman - who's judging? Powell, however, stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. They're judging who is better suited to attend. No it isn't. Ok... they're using it to choose who will attend. How would you like to word it? They're using race as a factor in acceptance with minority being a plus. Explain how that's fair. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
