 FORUM |
| JURIST >> OPINION >> Forum >> Affirmative Action Symposium >> Join the Symposium... |
—————————————————————————————
GRATZ v. BOLLINGER & GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS CASES
A JURIST ONLINE SYMPOSIUM
JOIN THE SYMPOSIUM!
JURIST and our contributors welcome your comments and questions on Gratz and Grutter and the essays in this JURIST symposium. Read what others have written, and enter your comments in the box provided below.
- Monday April 19, 2004 at 4:33 am
If it is indeed clear that we are just using diversity as a cover-name for remedying the effects of historical disadvantage attributable to the american citizenry, why would immigrants and other irrelevant groups be included? What if diversity-value is really implicated; as where the diversity means that which is different from the majority (or the dominant)? If our affirmative action policy is merely anti-caucasian, as one might assume by looking at how it is practiced, the diversity-value is another way of expressing this attitude. Yet, in the total context of the officials' racial policies, can it not be observed that the entire tendency is towards starting a race war or conflict in which the officials get to overthrow the constitutional order? Why have they turned to race, when for generations the hope of the public scholars was the magic of the bloodthirsty class war to come? If these tyrannical dreams are laudable motivation, or if revanchist aggression said to be restorative for blacks is justice, what sort of morality is left, that of the khmer rouge? The dead have no justice to seek, but the living ought not be given an anti-merit system by state aggression, as if it were known who inherits something in an alternative history.
john s bolton
teg
ny usa - Thursday January 29, 2004 at 6:16 am
You can't take bread from the children of the culprit. You can never punish the original sin, it's no longer alive to punish. It is unfair to the children of the culprit that it punish them for something they didn't do. So, therefore there should be NO advantage. It is like trying to punish someone for the sin of another. Does this not get through to YOU.
Dennis Smith
Student
Atlanta, GA USA - Tuesday October 14, 2003 at 12:53 pm
I have researched and published on the Con Law of affirmative action for some time, and was cited in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in these cases. I have read the entire symposium, and written a piece about the same length (10 pages) as some of these articles, but providing a different line of argument than any of them. Is there any chance it could be considered for addition to the symposium? Thanks for your consideration.
Martin Carcieri
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN - Thursday September 11, 2003 at 4:15 pm
I'm not even sure where to the analysis of Professor Baynes' comments. His errors in logic are many, the leap from effect to causal conclusions plentiful, and the inherent contradictions manifest. However, Professor Baynes does provide a valuable service in highlighting the reasoning and rationale, flawed though it maybe, underpinning current favor towards affirmative action.
John Sweeney
St. John\'s Univ. School of Law
NY, NY