Affirmative Action and Topic paper

[John Meany <jmeany@BENSON.MCKENNA.EDU>]

David Rhaesa wrote:

>John,
>
>did you consider Bill's limiting the subject matter of civil rights as a 
>friendly amendment to your topic proposal?  i'm not clear what the 
>status is there? 
>
>david rhaesa

Yes.

I wrote the topic paper to identify a 'zone' for discussion. My inclusion 
of specific topics in the paper was designed to meet any expectations of 
the topic committee. For a host of reasons, theoretical and practical, I 
am more interested in the selection of a topic area than in the selection 
of a given topic. I am satisfied with many of the recommendations for 
topic wording for a civil rights area, including the clarifications from 
Newnam (affirmative action), Mancuso (affirmative 'restriction' on civil 
rights), and Perkins (distinctions re public/private discrimination, zone 
of operation for affirmative action, etc.). I am equally satisfied with 
several of the topics that I originally included in the topic paper 
(including ones that clarify  zones of policy operation and urban policy).



John Meany
Claremont Colleges

---

• Prev by Date: Re: baketball not debate
• Next by Date: Re: baketball not debate
• Prev by thread: Re: DAVE GRASSMICK/DAVE RHAESE/ Mike Dickman/Color-blindness
• Next by thread: the republic of texas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page