[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Mike Dickman/Color-blindness

Al:

You seem to conclude that if AA solvency is widened to include the whole
community that the conclusion will be negative towards AA.  Why do you
assume that? Seems to me that a good argument can be made that all are
better off if the whole community has the possiblity of contributingto
thier fullest potential.  A good aff can turn this solvency argument into
an add on advantage!  

I get the point about focus on the impact to minorities but I think you
will have a hard time keeping the debate at that level.  Seems a better
strategy to turnt he argument in your favor.  Could be an interesting
year.

Mike
CC Debate

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Al Madrid wrote:

> >Al:
> >
> >Good point on using courts and cba.  These are legal/constitutional
> >questions first.  Although I think you would be hard pressed to claim that
> >the court is or should be completely devoid of pragmatic concerns.  As to
> >how a law can effect only one group of people...it depends on how wide you
> >want to define effect.  Take AA.  Even if the law was intended to only
> >effect minorities its long range effect is bound to be wider.  If for
> >example, AA is shown to be effective in helping minorities into education
> >and the workplace this is bound to make society more productive.  If
> >society is more productive my life is effected!
> >
> >Mike
> >CC Debate
> >
> Mike:  The courts primary reason for making the decision to affirm AA has
> been to adress a wrong done to a particular group.  THe fact that society
> is affected by the decision may become an issue of affects topicality.  In
> addition, as soon as we expand the focus of the solvency issue it no longer
> becomes an issue of minority focus, and in using cba for policy analysis
> the minority voice gets silenced at worse, and at the least is outweighed
> by "societal issues."  Which is my biggest gripe with your solvency
> argument.  There are more speciofic ways in which to challenge the
> argument, by turning the issue with potential harms to the groups under
> discussion.  However, this type of debate will not degenerate to the
> pedagogical objectification of minorities in the civil rights debate which
> is the fear of some on this topic.  That's all.  Good discussion.
> Al Madrid
> 
> >On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Al Madrid wrote:
> >
> >> RE:  Mike it depends on what the decision making the affirmative choses to
> >> use.  If the actor is the courts there is no way that the aff can claim
> >> comple solvency.  However, that begs the question of the court's actions.
> >> THe purpose of the court is to make legal decisions which can become
> >> defacto policy decisions, but the courts do not go into the cba of the
> >> issue rather the legal need for the issue.  MOreover, AA is an example of
> >> law which was intended to affect a particular group, those disaffected, or
> >> disenfranchised by society. I quote Justice Blackmun in the landmark Bakke
> >> case of 1978. "  I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an
> >> affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it be
> >> successful.  To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible.  IN order
> >> to get beyond racism, we must first take into account race.  There is no
> >> other way.  And in order to treat some people equally we must treat them
> >> differently.  WE cannot-we dare not-let the equal protection clause
> >> perpetuate racial supremacy."
> >>
> >> THe decision making done by Mr Justice Blackmun is an example of an issue
> >> which begs the solvency question.  That is we cannot look to solvency now,
> >> rather look to the legality of the question, and then solvency later.  IN
> >> addition, in the decision calculus the justice is looking at the invidous
> >> affects of the law to a group of people, hence it is possible that state
> >> laws can affect only a part of society.  This being true it calls into
> >> question who we should look at to determinew solvency.  If we look to
> >> minority writers to determine the effect of the policy we get closer to the
> >> reality than looking to generalist, which is what I feel your solvency post
> >> alludes to.  Al
> >>
> >> >AL:
> >> >
> >> >I can't do the fancy snip thing so insert this message after your
> >> >comments:
> >> >
> >> >No matter what group you are looking at solvency is an issue.  Even if you
> >> >say this law is only intended to effect one group of people.  Whether it
> >> >does effect that group in the direction intended or not is a solvency
> >> >issue.  Also, How could you have a law that only effects one group>>>esp.
> >> >when that group is as large of a group as an entire race/gender etc of
> >> >people?
> >> >
> >> >MIke
> >> >CC Debate
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Al Madrid wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >There is a huge difference in whre individuals choose to sit and the
> >>state
> >> >> >saying you may not sit here because you are Black.  You must sit
> >>over here
> >> >> >in this area (which we will conviently forget to maintain!).  Also, this
> >> >> >fails to answer my argument as to why we would expect to solve this
> >> >> >problem in a scant 20 years when it had over 300+ years to develop!(This
> >> >> >could be developed into a negative argument that we used to call
> >> >> >circumvention...ie even if the plan is passed, Americans are so myopic
> >> >> >that they will collectively pull the plug long before solvency kicks in!)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >MIke
> >> >> >CC Debate
> >> >>
> >> >> RE:  Of course Mike there are those who would say why is solvency the
> >> >> issue?  Certainly the Warren court saw these issues as being issues of
> >> >> whether it should exist or not.  THe solvency issue can be viewed
> >>from many
> >> >> perspectives.  It seems to me that if we look at solvency from the
> >>point of
> >> >> how the laws affect the intended group it would be distinctly different as
> >> >> compared to how it affects society as a whole.  THe laws were intended to
> >> >> affect the disaffected members of society, not society as a whole.  Al
> >> >> Madrid
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 28 Apr 97 at 8:28, Michael R. Dickman wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > There is a wide strain of "thats just the way it is" ism in this
> >> >> >> > country. For a long time Seperate but equal was just the way it was.
> >> >> >> >  Then the law was changed, followed by a few years of turbulance and
> >> >> >> > now going back to segregated seating on the bus, in doctors offices,
> >> >> >> > etc. is unthinkable to almost everyone in society.  Absent the
> >> >> >> > change in law, i don't think that would have happened!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You should see the race distribution in seating in our cafeteria.  We
> >> >> >> have an area called L.A. (Little Africa) where almost all of the
> >> >> >> black students sit.  The rest of the room is lily white.  Are there
> >> >> >> rules which force this?  No.  Is it "just the way it is?"  Yes.  If
> >> >> >> that how the social structure works, why should it be changed?
> >> >> >> Just an observation.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Big Dave
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> David A. Bargatze
> >> >> >> President, Calhoun Forensic Society
> >> >> >> Director, Department of Student Services
> >> >> >> Clemson University Student Senate Parliamentarian
> >> >> >> E-mail: dbargat@hubcap.clemson.edu
> >> >> >> WWW: In Flux
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page