Some dude in Novi that saw your Vote No on 2 photo listed here http://www.fuzzysquid.com/LJ.php and wondered "why on earth would anyone still be for affirmative action?".
Glad to meetcha!
I myself am a little bit torn on prop 2 because the concept is so old. I honestly didn't think that anyone still did racial profiling in the northern states. Go south of the bible belt and yeah, there's a lot of that and it IS still needed.
What is your say on the matter? Did you not get into college because they had to let some black person in to fill the quota?
Well, what strikes me right off is the "still" in "why would anyone still be for affirmative action"--- like the "these days" in your original question. Are we starting from a shared assumption that affirmative action was necessary and has done good?
I think you're naive to think we're all color-blind (and other-stuff-blind) above the Mason-Dixon. I also think you're a good bit off in thinking the way affirmative actions works in practice is that it forces some institution to fill quotas. It's U. Mich. that took the suit to the Supreme Court, after all, wanting the right to take factors into account that help build a diverse student body. And those sorts of quotas were specifically ruled out already, as I recall.
BTW, the term "racial profiling" is generally taken to refer to something other than what I think you're using it for. See the Wikipedia entry.
it may be that fflo's history runs at a much slower pace. she thinks it takes YEARS to correct things, or even that some things may NEVER be corrected since they were never meant to be corrected or alright. they are scary that way, the things are, so scary i wish i could vote too.
I heard this morning that Prop 2 is very closely divided, something like 40% for and 42% against. I can see a lot of reasons to get rid of affirmative action but I'm struggling to find any reasons to keep it.
because it addresses the injustices that would otherwise remain unaddressed, and which are inherent (intentionally built into) the american society. people who are in the position in this structure not to notice these injustices must be very fortunate to think everyone is like them.
Then one wonders why you're struggling... perhaps in your heart of hearts you know things are not equitable, and that not only are people still disadvantaged in many circumstances by virtue of mere demographic-type characteristics (around which centuries of oppression have been perpetuated) but also that other people are, consequently and necessarily, advantaged by virtue of not having those characteristics (and their consequent history, yes, but very much present-day advantaged daily lives).
If you yourself are a "white" male American of moderate or better means, it may be harder for you to get the whole picture, simply because it's harder to perceive how one is advantaged than how one is disadvantaged.
Hey, why not vote "NO" if you're not sure? Just in case it's very important that we keep options going in this discussion? You know, err on the safe side. If you want reasons, you could try a little googling. There are many great points articulated out there.
When Granholm signed HB 5029 into law, animal protection groups cried foul: "Governor Granholm has gone back on her word to veto dove hunting legislation, and has signed a death warrant for millions of gentle mourning doves in Michigan," said Fund for Animals President Michael Markarian, now also an executive vice president with The HSUS. "It is absolutely appalling that she has thumbed her nose at Michigan voters, and that she is personally responsible for allowing the bird of peace to be blasted into pieces."
Found Here: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html
I'm a member of HSUS, they've been all over this for a couple months now.
Truth is, Granholm WAS against the bill, but they had so many votes for the bill that they would have overridden Granholms veto. So rather than waste tax payer money by vetoing, she put it into a sunset clause... which is where we are today with it.
Now I didn't know that whole part of the story. I have a co-worker who campaigned against the dove hunting a while back, until word came down that we oughtn't be doing that sort of thing around here.
Nothing like a little election-related bamboozling, hunh. Shows to go you you've got to do yer research.
try this for size (from garrison keillor's writer's almanac):
Today is Election Day. Millions of people across the country will be going to the polls today to elect new legislators, judges, sheriffs, and school board members. For the first 50 years of American elections, only 15 percent of the adult population was eligible to vote. To be eligible to vote at the time, you had to be a white male property owner. In Connecticut, you had to be a white male property owner of a "quiet and peaceable behavior and civil conversation."
Thomas Dorr was one of the first politicians to argue that poor people should be given voting rights. As a member of the Rhode Island legislature, Dorr argued that all white adult men should have the vote, regardless of their wealth. He incited a riot to protest the governor's election of 1842 and went to prison for treason, but most states began to let poor white men vote soon after. Women were given the right to vote in 1920, and many African Americans were prevented from voting in the South until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Today, the only group of adult American citizens who are regularly prevented from voting are convicted felons.
Gore Vidal said, "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for president. One hopes it is the same half."
W.C. Fields said, "I never vote for anyone. I always vote against."
The other thing I forgot to mention in response to this poll quotation is the thing I heard recently about how polls on race-related issues tend to skew falsely toward the progressive side, cuzza white people's hesitation to tell pollsters the truth about their/our intentions to vote for the continuing advantage of their/our skin color (or, more properly, racial classification). (The library just e-mailed me to say the DVD I had on hold for me is in--- "Race: the power of an illusion." I'm looking forward to that one.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[vote No on 2 image]](https://p2.dreamwidth.org/05bd65f3949b/717209-295309/www.oneunitedmichigan.org/gif/postcardfront.gif)
no subject
Yes to ban affirmative action.
What good is affirmative action these days?
no subject
no subject
Glad to meetcha!
I myself am a little bit torn on prop 2 because the concept is so old. I honestly didn't think that anyone still did racial profiling in the northern states. Go south of the bible belt and yeah, there's a lot of that and it IS still needed.
What is your say on the matter? Did you not get into college because they had to let some black person in to fill the quota?
no subject
I think you're naive to think we're all color-blind (and other-stuff-blind) above the Mason-Dixon. I also think you're a good bit off in thinking the way affirmative actions works in practice is that it forces some institution to fill quotas. It's U. Mich. that took the suit to the Supreme Court, after all, wanting the right to take factors into account that help build a diverse student body. And those sorts of quotas were specifically ruled out already, as I recall.
BTW, the term "racial profiling" is generally taken to refer to something other than what I think you're using it for. See the Wikipedia entry.
Glad to meet you, too. So far, at least!
history
Re: history
Re: history
Re: history
Re: history
If you yourself are a "white" male American of moderate or better means, it may be harder for you to get the whole picture, simply because it's harder to perceive how one is advantaged than how one is disadvantaged.
Hey, why not vote "NO" if you're not sure? Just in case it's very important that we keep options going in this discussion? You know, err on the safe side. If you want reasons, you could try a little googling. There are many great points articulated out there.
Re: history
It's rather complicated.
I may just err on the safe side like you said.
I'm going to whack the doves tho... ;)
Re: history
Re: history
I don't even hunt.
Re: history
yeah, that one's really mean-spirited, ain't it?
Re: history
Found Here: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html
I'm a member of HSUS, they've been all over this for a couple months now.
Truth is, Granholm WAS against the bill, but they had so many votes for the bill that they would have overridden Granholms veto. So rather than waste tax payer money by vetoing, she put it into a sunset clause... which is where we are today with it.
Re: history
Nothing like a little election-related bamboozling, hunh. Shows to go you you've got to do yer research.
Re: history
Today is Election Day. Millions of people across the country will be going to the polls today to elect new legislators, judges, sheriffs, and school board members. For the first 50 years of American elections, only 15 percent of the adult population was eligible to vote. To be eligible to vote at the time, you had to be a white male property owner. In Connecticut, you had to be a white male property owner of a "quiet and peaceable behavior and civil conversation."
Thomas Dorr was one of the first politicians to argue that poor people should be given voting rights. As a member of the Rhode Island legislature, Dorr argued that all white adult men should have the vote, regardless of their wealth. He incited a riot to protest the governor's election of 1842 and went to prison for treason, but most states began to let poor white men vote soon after. Women were given the right to vote in 1920, and many African Americans were prevented from voting in the South until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Today, the only group of adult American citizens who are regularly prevented from voting are convicted felons.
Gore Vidal said, "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for president. One hopes it is the same half."
W.C. Fields said, "I never vote for anyone. I always vote against."
Re: history
Re: history
Re: history