RE: The Law and Politics of Affirmative Action

I wasn't as unsettled by professor Melissa Hart's approach as others were given that she was unsure of who her audience would be and that as she apologized for her manner we kept confirming she was with like-minded people.  Also, for a person who seemed more used to a debate format on the subject it seems logical she would present a more biased view.  I liked her point that the system shouldn't be changed to conform to the racism of others; her specific example being those who look around a classroom and think a person was only accepted into a college because of the color of that person's skin or that they were cheated out of acceptance for the same reason.

Like Ashley, I can see where Ward Connerly is coming from, trying to eradicate any "racial preferences" to considerations based purely on merit but this is at the expense of diversity and community supports, among other things.  A person's qualifications are already considered before racial considerations are taken into account.  With abolishing affirmative action, how then is unconscious discrimination to be dealt with?  It is impossible to determine a person's intent in such a matter and without laws to safeguard against discrimination how can we assume fairness in, for example, application processes - that a person was not accepted for racially charged reasons rather than purely based on merit (as per Connerly's goal).  Unfortunately, it is just not plausible in our society.  I'm not saying affirmative action is a panacea, that with it discrimination is magically a thing of the past, but it serves as at least a leg-up, for lack of better explanation.

To say that gender or race based programs will still be funded but only if they are open to everyone doesn't make sense and completely defeats their purpose.  It is shocking just how many programs would be eliminated, even scholarships having anything to do with race or gender. Ye gods!

In concurrence with others, my worry is how deceptive the amendment is.  I remember a gal telling me once she was at the MLK day parade on Colfax and an African-American man approached her trying to get signature to get the amendment on the ballot.  She asked if he really knew what the amendment was about and it turns out he had even been deceived by the language in the amendment.  It's frightening that someone who would be directly affected by the amendment, thought they knew what it was all about and was fervently supporting it, was mistaken.  With that, the uninformed must be far more horrifyingly (and unknowingly) perplexed.