while the ACLU accepts the most narrow 2nd Amend view

[The Last American Hero]

and really can't say what "collective right" might mean at all......


under 'Racial Justice' they have a whole host of issues and incidents, but every single one is nothing but "people behaving badly and getting what they had coming" (from police). https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/racial-justice
At BEST these are 'clouded' issues and not a single clear cut case of 'discrimination'. They totally ignore that Whites that do certain things are also often dealt with harshly by police.


On the other hand, where real discrimination is laid out in the law, they go pure BS and say "goals" aren't "quotas".

MYTH #3: Affirmative action really means quotas.
FALSE. Quotas are illegal. With affirmative action, federal contractors and employers must establish goals and timetables and make good faith efforts to meet them. But a legal affirmative action plan does not include quotas.

[bountyhunter]

One thing I know is that affirmative action may not supposed to equal quotas, but it has been that in the past. The real problem is that (saw it in our city) when the PD was forced to "balance" the racial makeup, they had to lower the standards drastically to get enough minorities onto the force and you get exactly what you pay for.

In schools: Davis medical University, where every seat has about 10,000 applicants, they were forced to set aside a number of places for minorities who did not meet the qualifications. The sad thing is they had a very low graduation rate so those seats in the school were essentially wasted.

Affirmative action is a noble concept but a process which should have been short lived and definitely has out stayed it's welcome.

BTW: it is now supposedly illegal to use race as a determiner in accepting students into our state universites. Know how they got around that? They built up a "profiling" system that looks at many factors on the application (zip code, name, family size, family income, etc) and came up with a program that can predict if an applicant is a minority with about 95% accuracy. So even though California made this practice illegal, they are still doing it here.

And the dems are trying to restore the lagality of using race quotas:

Democratic senators in January passed SCA 5, which would have restored racial and ethnic quotas that were stripped from California’s public-university systems in 1996 following statewide passage of anti-quota Proposition 209.

As I said, universities ignore thw law and still use race for quotas:

Ever since California voters banned the use of racial preferences in government and education in 1996, the University of California has tried to engineer admissions systems that would replicate the effect of explicit racial quotas while appearing color-blind.

To some observers, the legality of those efforts has long been suspect, but proof of wrongdoing has been hard to come by. Now a professor who sat on UCLA's committee on undergraduate admissions is charging that the school is deliberately taking race into account when deciding which students to admit. The university has refused to give him access to the data to test his claim, prompting the professor -- political science faculty member Tim Groseclose -- to resign from the school's admissions oversight committee in protest.

details have come out over the last 10 years to suggest that race remains a factor in many parts of the system. More important, hard evidence is accumulating that enrolling students in a college for which they are academically unprepared does them a disservice.

The story begins with the passage of Proposition 209, the 1996 anti-quota ballot initiative, which reduced the number of African Americans admitted to campuses across the state and sent UC officials into crisis mode. They began implementing a series of admissions changes intended to bring underqualified blacks and Latinos back to the system's most demanding campuses.

They tried a preference scheme for low-income students, but it backfired when it boosted the number of Eastern European and Vietnamese admissions -- not the sort of "diversity" the university had in mind. Administrators cut the low-income preferences in half and went back to the drawing board.

The subsequent admissions gambits, which continue to be rolled out to this day, are intended to increase "diversity" without running afoul of the law. Whether they have succeeded in substituting other factors for race in a permissible manner, or whether they are illegally seeking to pervert the requirements of the law, will probably be decided, in the end, in court.

[randian]

On the other hand, where real discrimination is laid out in the law, they go pure BS and say "goals" aren't "quotas".

That's because, like all leftists, they lie about who they are and what they want.

[The Last American Hero]

ACLU is concerned about 'immigrant detention' but as lawyers they can't seem to use the legally correct term "illegal alien".

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/detention

I understand their concerns over keeping people locked up, but what about solving that by returning them to Mexico or other origin, or just a little common sense and posting enough JrROTC or Boyscouts to turn them all back at the border so we aren't violating anyone's rights?

I've heard the general concept the cops aren't allowing anyone into a certain area because then the Dept would be liable when someone gets hurt. The US Govt is allowing these people to get into bad situations.

[Wiz-of-Awd]

ACLU is concerned about 'immigrant detention' but as lawyers they can't seem to use the legally correct term "illegal alien".

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/detention

I understand their concerns over keeping people locked up, but what about solving that by returning them to Mexico or other origin, or just a little common sense and posting enough JrROTC or Boyscouts to turn them all back at the border so we aren't violating anyone's rights?

I've heard the general concept the cops aren't allowing anyone into a certain area because then the Dept would be liable when someone gets hurt. The US Govt is allowing these people to get into bad situations.

Whoa there mister. Hold it right there...

A.W.D.

[Wherryj]

One thing I know is that affirmative action may not supposed to equal quotas, but it has been that in the past. The real problem is that (saw it in our city) when the PD was forced to "balance" the racial makeup, they had to lower the standards drastically to get enough minorities onto the force and you get exactly what you pay for.

In schools: Davis medical University, where every seat has about 10,000 applicants, they were forced to set aside a number of places for minorities who did not meet the qualifications. The sad thing is they had a very low graduation rate so those seats in the school were essentially wasted.

Affirmative action is a noble concept but a process which should have been short lived and definitely has out stayed it's welcome.

BTW: it is now supposedly illegal to use race as a determiner in accepting students into our state universites. Know how they got around that? They built up a "profiling" system that looks at many factors on the application (zip code, name, family size, family income, etc) and came up with a program that can predict if an applicant is a minority with about 95% accuracy. So even though California made this practice illegal, they are still doing it here.

And the dems are trying to restore the lagality of using race quotas:


As I said, universities ignore thw law and still use race for quotas:

My medical school did this as well. I was helping one of these students to study as she was struggling.

She was very stubborn and opinionated, yet somehow had a minority neurosurgeon with a prestigious residency and job awaiting her IF she could ever graduate. She was on her fourth attempt-and failed out of my class as well, even on the full scholarship that she was receiving. She didn't have to work on the side to afford books/housing, etc. like many of the rest of us.

The problem was that my medical school had a clear policy. You could "fail" or "conditionally fail" (they were being "progressive" and had changed letter grades to "honors", "high pass", "pass", "conditional pass" and "fail" (sounds like A, B, C, D and F with new names?) one class per semester. If you failed or conditionally failed more than one you were out. If you failed just one you got a single chance to make up the work during the summer break (only between first and second years-failing during second year meant losing a year of class). If you failed to do so adequately you were out. There were several non-minority students who failed a single class and were kicked out during my year.

She somehow got four tries, failing multiple classes per semester for multiple semesters. She failed out during the make-ups and still was asked back. I found out recently that she was a member of the class a year behind mine. I never heard if she managed to pass on the fifth try.

The reasons that I studied with here involved partially pity, but also a realization that anyone who'd argue that hard against anything I tried to tell her would make me know the material better. You never learn something as well as when you have to teach it to someone else.

It always scared the Hell out of me that some day she might be a physician. She had no comprehension of her lack of ability. She felt that it was all just "small minded people" who weren't as smart as she was. When I finally proved to her that the point she was making was wrong she'd typically fall back on the saying, "You are the type that just believes what someone else has told you. I'm not and cream floats to the top." It scares me when someone in a science field can ignore actual data and studies, but instead just opts for their own personal opinion.