6th Hour Symposium
For those of you who were absent or didn't get the opportunity to have your voice heard, feel free to post your thoughts. I am going to allow you to ask a question or two but then I would also like you to respond to other people's questions as well. I will accept comments through 3:03 PM on January 4th.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 10:26 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
One thing I've been wondering for a while is whether affirmative action resulting in admission of minorities to schools or employment of minorities to certain jobs should be considered reverse discrimination? (As noted in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County) Is it more important/beneficial to keep these affirmative actions to preserve the advances made in civil rights and accept the reasons for which colleges are admitting a variety of students (ex: to promote racial diversity)or to make it an even playing field for everyone, regardless of race?
~Melissa Parry
In regard to Melissa's comment..
I feel as though ethnicity has become so much more amplified than just giving everyone "equal opportunity" because I feel as though a person should NOT get extra money/scholarships based on just their skin because it's not fair. It doesn't seem right to give people an incentive to come to their school just because they are a certain color or practice a certain religion when there may be a highly involved and very smart student that doesn't receive as much. I do believe it is reverse discrimination.
In accordance with Melissa's comment, reverse discrimination is happening in some cases. Racial diversity is being promoted so much that less and less is going into if the people have earned it. Like Ashlan said, scholarships and even jobs, are being pressured to be more diverse in their decision-making, so much so, that final decisions are being made less about if the person deserves the job/scholarship and more about their ethnicity. The pressure to be diverse is now holding back people that are qualified for job positions/scholarships.
-Kelli Tobin
If the Framers believed that the people should have lots of say in decisions, then why don't we vote for Supreme court justices?
-Kelli Tobin
Commenting on my own... Since the Framers just got out of British rule and the people wanted to make decisions about their government, why don't we elect justices? We elect presidents to make decisions on our behalf so why don't we elect justices to decide what's constitutionally correct?
Kelli tobin
With regard to Melissa’s question:
I don’t think that ethnicity should play a role in college admission decisions, but it’s not for the reason that seems to fuel most of the critics of affirmative action programs, which is that taking race into account amounts to plain discrimination against white people. It's because these programs harm the same minority students they are supposed to benefit by lowering standards and destroying incentive. By setting the bar lower for minority groups, colleges make it impossible for there to ever be an even playing field. I think that any student who needs help to achieve enough academic success to get into college should receive it, minority or not. I believe that in order for this inequality to truly end, everyone must be considered on the same criteria, and not the color of their skin.
With regard to Kelli’s question:
By appointing the justices to life terms, the Framers attempted to insulate them from political pressure. They wanted the decisions to be made on well-reasoned principle and law, and if the justices were appointed and on the bench for life they would not be indebted to any group or vulnerable to the people, who might take issue with their decisions and decide to vote them out of office.
-Hannah Tamminga
Also regarding Melissa's comment, I certainly don't feel that money should be allocated to a student simply because they are a minority- it should be based on academic merit to the college. However, some socio-economic backgrounds don't place an emphesis on higher education and that money given by the school can make the difference in their attendance. It should be need based, not simply to increase racial diversity.
Especially during the Supreme Court’s discussion over Obamacare, there has been some talk of televising Supreme Court hearings. Some papers (i.e. The Washington Post; The Florida Times Union) claim that the American public demands that the Supreme Court be available to watch on television. Yet the Supreme Court continually refuses to televise the court. Would televising the court make it a source of entertainment, not education? Or would it be a valuable window into some of our nation’s most important decisions?
-Hannah Tamminga
In regard to Melissa's question..
I believe in equal opportunity, equal playing field, and the promotion of diversity in schools and job opportunities. Although i believe that we tend to misconstrued the meaning of "equal opportunities" When the system becomes unbalanced. fairness dose not just mean that a group of people have everything handed down to them on a silver plate i agree that we must earn what we work so hard to work for. For admission i believe that a student earns what he earns based on his grades not their ethnicity
Luis Cisneros
In regards to Kelli's question... I believe that the supreme court justices are indirectly approved of, or selected, by the people. We choose our President and our senators. The president selects the supreme court justices and these selections must be approved by the senate. So assuming the senators and president that we have selected will uphold the values that we voted them in for, the supreme court justices can be thought to hold these values as well.
In regards to Melissa's question...
I believe these incentives are infringing on the idea of equal opportunities for all. It is good to have diversity in all things, but rewarding someone simply for their race seems wrong. I think scholarships should be given to those who are financially unable to afford an education and deserving of the scholarships. For example, involved in the community, a strong curriculum and someone who is academically proficient.
- Sarah Owens
Post a Comment
<< Home