The Supreme Court ruling that confused everyone was Bakke: he was a white man who applied for entrance to medical school to be an anesthiologist. He sued for reverse discrimination when he was denied entry (based on race). The court decided in his favor, but left the affirmative action for college entrance quotas in place.

Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California.

It was in the 70's or early 80's.

'anesthesiologist'. Whatever.

I remember the case -- read about it in the paper when I was growing up, when they still had two papers in Detroit.

This will be an interesting thing to see; White people questioning and outright suing organizations enforcing affirmative action politics. I am ready to bet we will see more of those within the next few years as a spin-off of the Obama effect. If Black-Americans can reach the White House on their own merits, why do they need preferential hiring practices everywhere else?

I wonder if this should be breach of contract rather than racial discrimination. The unfairness of it all is certainly racially motivated, but the problem goes back to the fact that these men acted in reliance of a deal- they pass this test, they get the promotion, that the employer broke (for a really bad reason).

There are a few professions in which I think race is a valid consideration.

Acting, for example... you generally want to cast a black guy as Othello.

I can see an argument for needing black teachers and policemen, since they need to serve certain communities. (I've worked at a lot of programs for urban youth, and having an all-white staff is a handicap).

But firefighting?

IIRC, Bakke was in his late thirties or something, and wasn't a top-tier student anyway. Ironic, no?

(So I just went to Wikipedia to look up his D.O.B., but he doesn't have his own page! Don't you hate it when wikipedia let's down?)

It is frightening to realize the extent to which our laws and government policies are based on failed or failing "social engineering" ideologies.

Amy, it isn't that the skin color of one individual needs to match that of the people around them... it's that if you have a police department that is ALL-blond in a black neighborhood, it creates tension. Was the entire department where your friend worked blond?

I've worked in places that have all-white upper-middle-class teaching staffs for an all-minority, all-poor student population and it was a problem. Each teacher was good individually, but as a group it was problematic. There's also the issue of having role models.

But certainly, on an individual level, of course a white person can be a good cop or teacher in a bad neighborhood.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/04/11/internet-gasbag-dedicated-to-ending-discrimination-against-honkys/

I checked the above web site..I can't tell for sure, but it looks like a cross between the Onion and the subtle pushing of some sort of agenda.

okay.

I think there is also some amount of guilt feeling on the part of the writer. Since feminism is really an elitist movement, it by nature looks down on blacks, especially black males. So to compensate, the feminists consciously 'big up' and defend blacks, no matter what the situation.

Deep down these women know that blacks can sense the elitism, that's why there are so few black women who are feminists. Most of them (at least the influential ones) are in academia, or are writers (like Alice Walker).

Bakke was in his late thirties or something

actually that's a good point. Age discrimination is more prevalent than race discrimination, but (and because) it's much harder to prove, Bakke would have been a fool to sue based on age...even if he'd been turned down for a job.

I remember my own experience being a late 20's college student. I was turned down for all four 'co-op' jobs I interviewed for. I'd get weird looks from the inteviewers, and from the employees when taken on plant or office tours; and questions like "why haven't you gotten further in your career by now?" (one of the company's owner actually did asked me that).

For a co-op job there's pretty much nothing you can do, at least not back then - and if you did try to sue, the college itself would find some way to dump you.

Age discrimination at 28. Who woulda thunk it?

one of the company's owner actually did asked me that

I guess I would have been screened out by the company's writing test anyway.

"...Or maybe, you know, the black dudes, as members of an oppressed class, were marginalized from the git-go. Ya think?..."

I don't care who was oppressed or not. I still don't want some dumb@ss to come fight my fire, operate on my brain or teach my kids.

Incompetence due to 'oppression' doesn't obligate me to place my life, or my loved ones' lives, in incompetent or even dangerous hands any more than incompetence due to 'laziness' or 'low iq' or 'physical incompatibility with the rigors of the job'.

There are standards to be met in the world for good very reasons.

Somehow the military has imposed competency testing for achieving ranks -- and race has no factor in it. Its how you do that gets you ahead.

Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey

"Age discrimination is more prevalent than race discrimination"

I doubt whether that is true, but even if it was true it ignores an obvious point. Age is transitory, whereas race is more permanent. That is, most people experience life in different age groups at different times. Whereas a person's race is fixed for life. So even if age discrimination was more prevalent, the effects would be more likely to even out over the life cycle.

Whenever I catch the bus, I often get the chance to test the hypothesis. Suppose a young woman gets on the bus. There is a Sudanese man sitting next to a vacant seat in one spot. Elsewhere there is an aging white guy. More often than not, people find it a hell of a lot easier to overcome their age prejudices than their race ones.

Indeed, common sense would suggest that for a significant proportion of the population, hostility and suspicion towards certain races is more deeply ingrained than prejudice against certain age groups. I can't think of a country that has experienced major civil disruption among different age groups, but there has been plenty of civil conflict along ethnic/racial lines.

Norman, what you really mean is: you don't care about anything other than age discrimination because it doesn't affect you personally.

hostility and suspicion towards certain races is more deeply ingrained than prejudice against certain age groups

The topic is discrimination, not prejudice.

So even if age discrimination was more prevalent, the effects would be more likely to even out over the life cycle

That's true at least with respect to the kind of mentality of the person making that statement: 30 years from now you'll be whistling a different tune.

what you really mean is: you don't care about anything other than age discrimination because it doesn't affect you personally.

oh oh, Nick's trying to insert thoughts into my head again. Perhaps he is an idiot.

There is a Sudanese man sitting next to a vacant seat in one spot. Elsewhere there is an aging white guy. More often than not, people find it a hell of a lot easier to overcome their age prejudices than their race ones.

Women, who evolved to fear sexual assault, are going to take the seat next to the man they find less physically threatening. Young white guy versus old white guy. Young woman instead of an old man.

People tend to favor their own in groups -- whether racially, religiously or just journalists hanging out with journalists. This isn't a sign of hatred or fear of others. It's a natural human preference.

None of this means discrimination on the basis of race in hiring is okay. You don't make discrimination right by discriminating. Furthermore, the notion that my friend Richard, whose mind just delights me and who always impresses me with the level of thought he puts into any question -- the notion that he somehow needs some extra help in the world because he has dark skin is really insulting and disgusting. P.S. He graduated from University of Michigan law school probably 30 years ago, but doesn't practice law.

Here's the comment I left over at the femininny's site -- first referencing some chick who felt compelled to lie about me. Interesting, and not at all surprising to see the underhanded approach.

As anyone who's e-mailed me has probably observed, I'm pretty proper in the language I use to respond to people; in fact, when people write me for advice using "ur," etc., I sometimes make them rewrite their e-mail in proper English (you're getting free advice, put some effort in, ya yob).

Kind of a fanatic for proper English -- just love the stuff --which is why this victim feminist's accusation is so obviously a lie.

So, here's my comment left there:

she screamed for a dense and long paragraph without punctuation of any kind and capital letters only to increase her volume.

Um, am I not awful enough without making up lies about me? If there’s anything I am, it’s fanatic about punctuation. I tried to find the e-mail but I don’t have it. Pity.

You ladies are pretty cute. Or is that lydys? Or Wymn?

FYI, I get letters constantly from men who’ve been tricked into fathering children. Got one yesterday. Woman told him she had a tipped uterus or something, and couldn’t get pregnant, and the guy was dumb enough to believe her.

Of course men should use condoms — and bring their own and maintain custody of them every step of the way, unless they have good reason to believe a woman is ethical. But this TV bit wasn’t the Amy Alkon show — I just answered the questions — and I didn’t go into a comprehensive lecture on what should be common sense for any man having sex. Really not that interesting.

Furthermore, regarding your other post — found it when one of your terrified commenters (too terrified to post as anything more than “d”) came over to leave the link on my site. Too afraid to actually engage with the commenters on my site, not surprisingly. Should I start an affirmative action program for your commenters to make it okay for them to speak their minds in the midst of people who actually put reason behind their comments?

"...people who actually put reason behind their comments"

Such as the recurring bit of reasoning popping up here that, now that the President is black, why on earth would we need affirmative action?! Good point, guys. Ah, January 20th 2009, the date when racial discrimination was forever ended in this land.

"If you’re a woman it’s totally your responsibility to take care of birth control."

Yeah, sounds fair. What I find a lot more frightening than the spectre of women deviously getting pregnant behind men's backs (so to speak) is women actually taking your "advice" seriously.

So Amy is pro-choice? I'm glad to hear it. I'll put you on my literature lists for donations!

"The topic is discrimination, not prejudice."

Yeah right. As if the two subjects are completely separate and mutually exclusive. Discrimination is in no way related to prejudice apparently.

"oh oh, Nick's trying to insert thoughts into my head again. Perhaps he is an idiot."

Says the same person who has previously argued ad absurdum not on the basis of what I actually write, but on the basis of what he insists I really think.

In the very same post, Norman claims to know what I'll be thinking in the future (i.e. "in 30 years from now he'll be whistling a different tune"). Apparently Norman's psychic powers extend to not only knowing what I currently think, but what I'll be thinking in the future.

"That's true at least with respect to the kind of mentality of the person making that statement: 30 years from now you'll be whistling a different tune."

But one could just as easily say: 'Well, if Norman was black, or a woman, or gay he'd be whistling a different tune'.

Of course it's true that, on average, people are more likely to support a position that suits their self-interest or current perspective on life. But then, so what? This proves nothing as to which position is more sound.

The problem with this kind of lazy relativist position is that if everyone adopts this way of looking at things, nothing will ever be resolved. If everyone's perspective is just as valid, and there is no objective truth, then there is little point to any debate.

It's a standard feature of the current politically correct victimhood mantra to argue that the subjective feelings of designated victim groups are more valid than logic or evidence. It's a bit like in the women's studies classes where they claim that logic is a male invention to suppress women's voice and feelings.

Also, it's ridiculous for anyone to claim to speak for everyone in a designated group. According to Norman, when I am older I will see things differently. But Norman doesn't speak for everyone in a particular age group, any more than NOW speaks for all women or the NAACP speaks for all blacks.