Brown v. Board of Ed

[Akno21]

Yes. Separate is inherently unequal, and they weren't equal anyway. (Most southern states spent 10x more on white schools than black ones)

[A18]

Separate is not inherently unequal. I do agree that they weren't equal.

[Alcon]

Yes.

[True Democrat]

Yes

[7,052,770]

yes, of course...who voted no?

[Akno21]

yes, of course...who voted no?

Philip and anyone he created. Maybe StatesRights.

[TheWildCard]

Yes it was a very good decision. Only flaw in it was the fact that they were very broad in the time frame they gave "with all deliberate speed"

[A18]

I think I voted yes, though I don't really remember. Because the black schools weren't equal, which was a violation of the fourteenth amendment. However, separate but equal does not deprive people of equal protection of the law.

[dazzleman]

I voted yes.

I agree with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, but I have some ambivalence about some of the thinking behind the ruling, and what the ruling has spawned.  I think it was the right ruling made for some of the wrong reasons, and with unrealistic expectations of what the results of the ruling would be.

The ruling was based to a large degree on the idea that separating black children makes them feel inferior.  In that regard, there was a good deal of pop psychology used to argue in favor of the ruling.  I think it would have been better to simply say that it was wrong to treat citizens differently based upon skin color, and leave it at that.  All kids have a right to an equal educational opportunity, and there should be no deliberately different treatment based on race.

Brown however has spawned the idea that it is within the government's control to integrate society and to give each child an equal education, and this is not the case.  First, it was thought that simply mixing blacks and whites arbitrarily would equalize educational standards, and that did not work.  Today, even liberals seem to have given up on integration (because neither black or white liberals really want integration) and now the argument is that more money for largely black school districts will solve the problem.

Brown was definitely a correct ruling, but there have been many missteps as a result of it.  Failure to recognize the importance of parents, the home and family structure to a child's educational prospects has been one of the biggest missteps.  Forced busing was another abomination that grew from Brown, which brought blacks no benefits but effectively caused many lower middle class whites to lose access to a good education for their children.  We should seek to add to the people who have access to good education, not subtract from it, and this is what busing did.

At the present time, we need to give children with access only to failing public schools an alternative.  We also need to recognize, politically incorrect though it may be, that the reason some schools fail is that they have too many students who come from unsatisfactory home environments, and without support from the home, schools cannot succeed.  These schools operate within toxic environments, and no amount of money or forced integration can cure that.  Providing students in failing districts with a voluntary alternative is the real answer to the very legitimate issues that Brown sought to address.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If the court had held that actions by government regarding individuals based on their race was inherently unconstitutional, it would have been a good decision.

Instead, the court engaged in reading nut case sociology into the constitution.

There are all white, all black, all asian and all native american shools which function very well (educating the students).

Integration is not constitutionally manditory (at least if you read the constitution with respect), but government mandated segregation is unconstitutional.

[??????????]

yes, of course...who voted no?

Philip and anyone he created. Maybe StatesRights.

Why do you assume I voted "no". For the record I voted "yes".

[minionofmidas]

yes, of course...who voted no?

Philip and anyone he created. Maybe StatesRights.

Why do you assume I voted "no". For the record I voted "yes".

Good for you. Note he said "maybe", btw.

[??????????]

As I have stated earlier I believe in basic civil rights for everyone (examples, voting, right to equal view under the law, right to close to equal as possible education). My problem is programs like A.A. and the like.

[J. J.]

As I have stated earlier I believe in basic civil rights for everyone (examples, voting, right to equal view under the law, right to close to equal as possible education). My problem is programs like A.A. and the like.

To some extent I support A.A.  If an institution has a history of discrimination, I can see using A.A. to make up for loss of opportunity in the past.  This thing is that it's not a permanent situation.

[??????????]

As I have stated earlier I believe in basic civil rights for everyone (examples, voting, right to equal view under the law, right to close to equal as possible education). My problem is programs like A.A. and the like.

To some extent I support A.A.  If an institution has a history of discrimination, I can see using A.A. to make up for loss of opportunity in the past.  This thing is that it's not a permanent situation.

Why should a company or person have to pay for past "abuses" or "failures"? Reperations are a joke.

[A18]

Institutions should be free to discriminate as they so desire.

[J. J.]

As I have stated earlier I believe in basic civil rights for everyone (examples, voting, right to equal view under the law, right to close to equal as possible education). My problem is programs like A.A. and the like.

To some extent I support A.A.  If an institution has a history of discrimination, I can see using A.A. to make up for loss of opportunity in the past.  This thing is that it's not a permanent situation.

Why should a company or person have to pay for past "abuses" or "failures"? Reperations are a joke.

Because they have violated what you refer to as "basic civil rights for everyone."  These are not "reparations," but a way to enforce civil rights.

They also send a deterrence message.  If another institution doesn't want to face A.A., and all that it intails, it won't discriminate.

[??????????]

As I have stated earlier I believe in basic civil rights for everyone (examples, voting, right to equal view under the law, right to close to equal as possible education). My problem is programs like A.A. and the like.

To some extent I support A.A.  If an institution has a history of discrimination, I can see using A.A. to make up for loss of opportunity in the past.  This thing is that it's not a permanent situation.

Why should a company or person have to pay for past "abuses" or "failures"? Reperations are a joke.

Because they have violated what you refer to as "basic civil rights for everyone."  These are not "reparations," but a way to enforce civil rights.

They also send a deterrence message.  If another institution doesn't want to face A.A., and all that it intails, it won't discriminate.

Even if these violations were 60 years ago?

[Akno21]

yes, of course...who voted no?

Philip and anyone he created. Maybe StatesRights.

Why do you assume I voted "no". For the record I voted "yes".

StatesRights. Someone had to vote no.

[??????????]

yes, of course...who voted no?

Philip and anyone he created. Maybe StatesRights.

Why do you assume I voted "no". For the record I voted "yes".

StatesRights. Someone had to vote no.

5 people did obviously.

[J. J.]

To some extent I support A.A.  If an institution has a history of discrimination, I can see using A.A. to make up for loss of opportunity in the past.  This thing is that it's not a permanent situation.

Even if these violations were 60 years ago?

If the situation has not been remedied in the past 60 years, Hell yes.


Assume that we are referring to a college.  60 years ago, the college wouldn't admit African Americans and Asians (AA &A, for short).  It changed that policy and decided that the child of anyone who graduated would automatically get in, or would be given an exceptionally high preference in admission.  Most of the people admitted are the childern of graduates.

Now, over the course of those fifty years, most of the graduates will not be AA & A.  Sure, because not everyone that was admitted was the child of a graduate, and because some graduates had AA & A children, there will be more that there would have been sixty years, but it still wouldn't reflect society.

Now, let's say that there was never any affirmative action.  We both apply and have identical test scores.  My father just happened to this college, as did my grandfather.

Your father did not, and he just happened to be one of those AA & A's.  He couldn't get in because his father wasn't a graduate and his father wasn't permitted to get in because he was one of those AA & A's.

Okay we both apply and have identical scores.  Who gets a preference?  I do, not because I pesonally am White, but because my ancestors were.  You don't get in, not because you are one of those AA & A's, but because your ancestors were. 

Now, affirmmative action tends to modify that factor.  It tends to say, okay, if your in this previously descriminated against group, this will help you get into this good ole boy network.  :-)

This is an oversimplification of the process; colleges look at many factor, but both of these are taken into account, along with a host of others.  At a point where the AA & A's, in this example, are part of the good ole boy network, there is no longer a need for affirmative action.

[??????????]

Well, my company is very good ole boy and its a pretty good company to work for. Everyone knows everyone and gets along well so I really can't say I have much problem with a "good ole boy" company.

[J. J.]

Well, my company is very good ole boy and its a pretty good company to work for. Everyone knows everyone and gets along well so I really can't say I have much problem with a "good ole boy" company.

I'm not suggesting that is a problem to this network, provided that it create a permanent barrier.  Look, I worked in a civil service position.  There were testing requirements to get the job, but there was also a bit of a "good ole boy" network.  If someone had a relative working there, it was helpful in getting a job there. 

Now most of the people in this network happened to be Black.  I don't happen to be Black, but I don't object, because there was more than enough other ways to get a job there.  It helped some people get jobs, however. 

Now, maybe 50 years ago, you could not have had this type of network, but it's now in place.  The situation has evolved where race didn't have that much of a factor in getting a job there.  Ideally, an very possibly in your company, the situation has evolved to where the "good ole boy" network is integrated.  It might have taken affirmative action to get to that point, even if this was some manager in 1965 sayin to himself, "Ah, we should be giving qualified Black people more or better jobs."

An institution that is fully integrated shouldn't be worried about affirmative action.  It isn't applicable.

[dazzleman]

J.J., you make some great points.  The legacy issue in college admissions is one that I have also talked about.

I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said the answer may be when the "old boy" network is integrated.

Women and minorities have complained for some time, and with some justification, about the old boy network because it reinforces past discrimination.  Affirmative action is an attempt to circumvent the old boy network and strip away some of the effects of it.

As you said, the goal should not be to have permanent affirmative action, as some in the civil rights movement really want, because it is a spoils system for them.  The goal should be to allow for groups who were previously excluded to either build their own old boy (or old girl)networks, or become part of the existing old boy network so that the benefits of this network can be expanded to those previously excluded from it.  This is much more realistic than to think that things like the old boy network will simply disappear.  It never will.

My problem with affirmative action efforts is when arbitrary judgments are made about hiring and admission practices based upon superficial information that doesn't take all the facts into account.  For example, if somebody is examining the hiring practices of a fire department, and finds a low percentage of women, it is inappropriate to simply say that they must be discriminating because the portion of women as a percentage of the department doesn't match the overall population, without taking into account (a) the lower level of female, versus male, interest in being a firefighter; and (b) the fact that the physical requirements of the job exclude most females, like it or not.

So I have a big problem when people (a) don't take job requirements, and the ability of various segments of the population to meet those requirements, into account when assessing the presence of discrimination; and (b) suggest that the legitimate requirements of a job should be changed to allow for more hiring of a presently favored group.

When affirmative action takes this form, I firmly oppose it.  This would include watering down physical or educational requirements, allowing lower test scores for a favored group, or requiring lower performance standards on the job for certain types of people.  All this is being done in the name of affirmative action, and it is wrong.  Much of this is what has given affirmative action a bad name.

One insidious effect of affirmative action is that it has served as a safety valve to avoid addressing some of the real underlying problems, such as the abysmal educatonal opportunities available to most blacks.  If more blacks living in poor inner city or rural areas had access to better education, maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much time talking about the need for affirmative action.  Rather than deal with this, many suggest that we simply use affirmative action to ratify these poor educational results.  It may sound good in the short run, but in the long run it's a disaster.

Another bad effect of affirmative action in practice is that it effectively forces the continuation of discrimination in a different form, in that it forces employers to treat black employees differently from white employees.  This is noted and resented.  Because it is so easy to claim discrimination, employees have to be very careful about firing even a blatantly incompetent black employee.  Since many blacks have been trained to see discrimination everywhere, and our overall society has become increasingly centered on avoiding personal responsibility for anything, a terminated employee who is black often assumes that discrimination was automatically the cause of his/her dismissal.  This makes it much more risky for companies to hire and promote blacks, and is working against the stated goals of affirmative action.  I am working with a case like this right now, and this type of thing is a huge deterrent against hiring blacks (just as all the false sexual harassment claims are a deterrent against hiring women).

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the reasons many of the larger corporations are having problems performing (i.e. meeting market needs) is that they are more interested in meeting afirmative action 'goals' (we used to call them quotas).

These 'goals' not only include hiring of a set percentage of specified 'minorities' but in the promotion of a minorities to positions of authority in accordance with standards set by the government.

To give you an example of how this works, corporations really like promoting black women to positions where they don't have the training or aptitude to perform as effectively as their counterparts of other races because the corporation can count them twice (the term is twofers) in meeting goals.