(no subject)

[novapsyche]

I'm going to say it, and I don't care how many people hate me for saying it:

Affirmative action is still needed in the United States.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes. We might need to even intensify it. It says something about the depth and persistence of racism that, even with 30 years of affirmative action, there is still a sickening disparity.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I don't hate you. I'm voting NO on Prop 2.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_swallow/]

For serious.

[brendand.livejournal.com]

I do not hate you. I do not disagree. I just think it needs to be reformed. And people will be more willing to improve it if it's gone.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

...how is your new pantyhose...
oh!
Uh,
Yeah!
I agree with you!

[gwendally.livejournal.com]

I agree. People will almost always hire people just like them. You need to have an impetus to reach out to the unknown. The value in having diversity in the workplace (or the school) is so immense, so valuable, but hardly anyone ever talks about how much stronger we are for having different points of view.

I heard Rumsfield last night saying that their plans for Iraq couldn't be criticized because no one knows the future. It was really clear to me that they don't have ANYONE on their team with simple analytical/predictive skills. (Give Democracy to Shiites and they'll probably immediately vote to form a Theocracy, for example.) The lack of diversity of opinion creates a stunningly weak organism.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

You'll get no arguements from me.

[mjwise.livejournal.com]

I don't hate you, and AA is probably still needed. But the only form of AA banned by MCRI is preference-granting AA, and only preferences based on gender, race, and ethnicity in public institutions. (and notably not SES (socioeconomic status)).

It doesn't surprise me the gubernatorial candidates (Granholm AND DeVos) have come out swinging against MCRI, because the preferential, institutional racism-embracing AA is the sort of thing politicians generally root for - they get to say they're striving for equality when in reality they just get a freebie shortcut to claim to boost college and public employment diversity while ignoring the systemic problems in public school funding and operations. The State Legislature in Ohio made a profession out of avoiding actually dealing with school inequality to the point where they were all almost summarily imprisoned for contempt of court because of there utter unwillingness to actually fix the problems. (In that particular case rural schools were horribly underfunded in Ohio for decades and the quality of public education in many rural districts was shameful and unjust.)

Trying to apply a band-aid like preferential race-based AA at the college admission or public employment level to ameliorate crappy schools is insulting to everyone involved and breeds cynicism. This (http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/michigan_lsa_charts.html) is not just. Neither is this (http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/michigan_charts_intl.html). Such practice has no place in a society that claims to embrace equality.

As someone who has no direct stake in this race (I still vote absentee in Ohio, and I will certainly move out of state probably within the next 9 months) I am going to go out on a limb and predict MCRI is going to pass comfortably, say, 56-44. Polling on ballot issues involving civil rights issues where the "yes" side fears appearing hateful suffers from serious underestimate bias (see the ease at which gay marriage bans have passed in every state they've been put on a ballot compared to what some polls predicted).