When does Equity become Discrimination?

[Advocat]

Taking off from several other threads, at what point does legitmate provision of equity to minorities become discrimination against the majority, commonly thought of as white males? Should we include Christian as part of that description?

Just as an additional thought, I was recently reminded of an old story from the 1930s. An old, poor Jewish shoemaker in Poland was seen by his friend to pick up an anti-Semitic leaflet from the local facist group, describing the international Jewish conspiracy. "Why ever would you want to read those!?" asked one of his friends. "So I can see how rich and powerful I am" he replied.

A <b>lot</b> of white males, who aren't in the one percent of powerful males on Wall Street or in major corporations, find echos in this story of how they feel about the equity regulations and life as a white male.

Thoughts?

[cdw]

I think way back in the thread it was shown that the law was changed to read men and women, so there was no discrimination. I believe it was a post by just lurking or a name similar to that.

[Biker]

Define "legitimate provision of equity to minorities". In my eyes, reverse discrimination is just as bad as what led to it to begin with. As long as people try to pass laws to right a wrong with another wrong, society will still be totally out of whack.

[Advocat]

Originally posted by Biker
Define "legitimate provision of equity to minorities". In my eyes, reverse discrimination is just as bad as what led to it to begin with. As long as people try to pass laws to right a wrong with another wrong, society will still be totally out of whack.

Fair question, and one that shows we're on the same mental track. To my mind, laws to <b>prevent</b> discrimination in the workplace and otherwise are fair and doable, and I don't think anyone would disagree with them.

But as several people have pointed out in other threads, the mindset of employment equity now is that it's ok to pass over white males for hiring or promotion because the company needs to meet a legal quota, and it will also look qood on the yearly company statistical report. Access to opportunity is one thing, IMO, preference is another... btw, when will "equity progrms" have completed their purpose, or will minorities always have preferential rights? It's a question I've never heard a good answer to.

When men ask why things have to be this way, the reason we're given is that some guys on Wall Street or in major corporations make a lot of money and don't let women in... this tiny group of wealthy, privilaged men are the standard to which the rest of us - who have no privilage other than what we worked for - are compared to.... thus my reference to the 1930s story in my first post.

I'm not a bigot, I don't discriminate against women (or anyone else) by any means, so why are my chances of jobs or promotions reduced? It affects me personally, how else can I take this but as personally?

Another thing for to keep in mind; in the 80's and early 90's when these laws were introduced, jobs were plentiful... there were lots to go around. These days, when Wall Street speaks of a "jobless recovery", the idea of not getting jobs/promotions becomes a lot more than a philosophical discussion on ethics and rights... it starts to mean the difference between a decent place to live and money for the kid's education, or welfare, at best.

No wonder males are starting to question the whole program.

[Biker]

The whole legal issue of "quotas" is totally out of whack and wrong. From an economical and social standpoint, it's one of the worst things they've ever conceived. A business thrives on using the best person for the job, not the "right" person for the job. Using a quota system not only drops moral within the corporation but also affects the bottom line.

[ShinyTop]

Do you want to be operated on by the best qualified doctor or the one who got in by quotas?

[cdw]

this tiny group

Oh boy... I'm not THAT out of the loop. I'm sorry that things aren't appearing equitable to you guys, but come on. A tiny group?
It's good question the "fairness" of things. I'm sorry some of you are experiencing exactly what many others are experiencing through no fault of their own be it their race, sex, lack of money, religion, whatever. Doesn't feel too good I'm sure. But lets not forget how all this started and it wasn't any "small group", it was a way of life.
So, again, you think things aren't right? Fight it.

[Biker]

Problem is, the mindset is such that when it is fought, the cries of racism, control freak, etc. come fast and furious. Doesn't matter that we're fighting for what's right. Society and the legal system has gotten so corrupt that one can't even cry foul without the system declaring you a bigot or racist.

[Advocat]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Oh boy... I'm not THAT out of the loop. I'm sorry that things aren't appearing equitable to you guys, but come on. A tiny group?

In comparison to the entire population of the US, yes, it's tiny. Shall we say 1% of the adult male poplulation are rich, powerful and in postions of control? That means 99% aren't. That, by definition is a tiny group, yet that group and their "glass ceiling" are the reasons we're told equity is necessary. Doesn't hold a lot of water with a welder not getting hired in Pennsylvania because equity laws require a female be hired, rather than simply saying "the best person should be hired"

There seems to be some confusion between equity in hiring and curing the culture of discrimination. One gets you a job, the other gets people to change their minds and the way they treat others. The first is a forced stopgap, the second cures the problem.

So, again, you think things aren't right? Fight it. Actually, there does seem to be some movement in this direction, likely spurred on, as I mentioned earlier, by economic forces and growing frustration.

[limeygit]

You know what, a black woman, born into a rich family, with connections, is going to have a million more job opportunities than me, no matter what qualifications they have.
The whole white male thing is a side effect of the fact most people born with an advantage are white, but these laws do nothing about the actual problem, but hey even to say that is probably mindless communism, right?

[joseftu]

limeygit, are you hinting at the "c-word?"
Class?
Thank you!
Race is often a marker for class...but certainly not always. In fact, the complexities of race, class, and culture in this country are almost inextricable (and I can't even speak for the lime-ish side of the Atlantic).

If I'm on the hiring committee at my school, and two people are looking for a job. We interview both of them, and one is working class, and the other is not. (Let's assume they're both the same race and gender).
Their qualifications are basically equal, but the working class person is going to have an accent, his clothes aren't going to be quite right. He's probably got dental problems. His haircut is not so slick.
Working class professors are rare. They've been consistently not hired for years. Most of our students are working class. Should I vote to hire him? Or the other guy, who's a lot more like me?

[Misu]

Originally posted by Copzilla
Well, you know, everyone "oppressed" is running around screwing me over and telling me how good I've got it. And you know, I do have it pretty damned good, but everything I have I got by earning it, not by someone giving it to me in order to make amends for some perceived injustice.

Maybe you earned the scores you did because you were treated like the competent person that you are. Meanwhile, others who were not raised as a normal competent person didn't achieve the same scores because of that fact.

I understand why you feel the way you do, but your statements make it clear that you don't understand how the treatment a person recieves throughout their life affects everything about that person, from their education and intelligence right down to the music they listen to and their attitudes about politics.

And I'm not saying what happened to you is just or right, nor do I agree with the "free ride" mentality that seems to have run amuck - I agree with you, it should be based on scores alone and not on the race or gender. But in order for our society to reach that level one day, we have to do affirmative action TODAY. But my idea of affirmative action is not what is currently going on - for me, affirmative action should be about giving people the chance to prove themselves who otherwise would have never gotten the chance because of their gender or race. Not that a person of color or a female should get the job regardless of test scores or abilities, but receive the chance to prove they can compete at the same level as "the white man."

I agree that what is happening to white men is disgusting and wrong and not what affirmative action should be, but it's human nature that when one gets some power, they use it to get more power, and the only way to do that is to knock down everyone else. It's not right, but it's how it is, and I firmly believe a movement needs to start to emphasize equality for all.

[limeygit]

Well I don't think it is class in the sense of the classic British class system idea, but it is the bastardized half-grandson, maybe.
Also, I don't know if anyone has raised this point, but all of these 'rules' tend to apply only to the lower rungs of the management ladder. Which in no way threatens the elitish clique we hear so much about...

[cdw]

Doesn't hold a lot of water with a welder not getting hired in Pennsylvania because equity laws require a female be hired, rather than simply saying "the best person should be hired"

And the whinning I'm hearing about inequities and the problems with fighting for what you think are your rights because it may not look right and you might be called names holds absolutely NO water with a woman that couldn't even have gotten a job as a welder because the MAJORITY of the male population thought she shouldn't be one... that was his domain. And had the power to make sure I didn't get hired.
So, please, spare me. I agree there are inequities. But please quit making excuses for why there were things put in place to ensure that the white man was not the only one getting a shake. If you feel you are the underdog, believe me, it's relatively new in the scheme of things.

Again, fight for your rights. I would be one that should it come to a vote, I would vote to protect your rights. There are other people in this forum that would vote to protect your rights.

And, now I'm stepping off my soapbox. I think between all the threads I've made my stance pretty clear.
If you need me to sign a petition or something, hey, please don't hesitate to send it on over. :)

[Coriolis]

Deleted, post lost context in the thread split/move....

[Copzilla]

Originally posted by Misu
Maybe you earned the scores you did because you were treated like the competent person that you are. Meanwhile, others who were not raised as a normal competent person didn't achieve the same scores because of that fact.
You didn't understand what happened, Misu. I scored the highest on the WRITTEN exam, and several other white males also scored well. We were systematically hosed by the interview board in stage two, made up exclusively of women and minorities.

Originally posted by Misu
I understand why you feel the way you do, but your statements make it clear that you don't understand how the treatment a person recieves throughout their life affects everything about that person, from their education and intelligence right down to the music they listen to and their attitudes about politics.
I don't see where you can draw this conclusion about me from any of my statements. Want to qualify what is so "clear" about this conclusion? The conclusion that I don't understand people and how their upbringing affects them?

I understand full well about environments, I also understand that the rules of society are known to ALL PEOPLE, and that all people are told that education, saving, hard work, these are paths to success. ALL SCHOOL KIDS are taught that, but some cultures choose to ignore it more than others. But some are still given things handed to them above those who are more deserving, and it's all justified in the name of equality.

And all you do when you do that is create animosity and hatred. How is that supposed to help?

Same thing happens when women need their own club "for reasons men can't possibly understand", because "men are pigs", and "men leer and gawk at women in comprimising positions", and "heavy women need privacy to work out", but men cannot have their own athletic club, because then we're sexist and assholes who are making backroom deals, trying to keep power from women. Men have desires to be free from the women too, sometimes, and a golf course is as good a place as any to enjoy male solitude.

We're reaching the point where backroom deals are required in order to promote someone who is the most deserving.

It's a society ate up with envy, that's all we're looking at.

[LissaKay]

Originally posted by Copzilla
Same thing happens when women need their own club "for reasons men can't possibly understand", because "men are pigs", and "men leer and gawk at women in comprimising positions", and "heavy women need privacy to work out", but men cannot have their own athletic club, because then we're sexist and assholes who are making backroom deals, trying to keep power from women.


No one said men cannot have their own health club. Not a single person here, that I can recall. And the article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030520/ap_on_el_st_lo/wisconsin_gyms_2) that was misquoted in the thread that induced such hysteria over women having their own health club states:
Wisconsin fitness centers can bar men or women from joining their clubs under a bill Gov. Jim Doyle signed Monday that exempts the gyms from the state's anti-discrimination laws
Emphasis added

I don't see why some men persist in denying women their need for privacy. Weight loss and body image issues can be very personal for some women. Many would prefer to discuss them with other females, without men being around, for the very reason this became a huge debate ... men don't have the same psychology about appearance, and they just don't get it when women agonize over their weight.

Do men also resent our having exclusive doctors, i.e., gynecologists???

[Domh]

Originally posted by Misu
...your statements make it clear that you don't understand how the treatment a person recieves throughout their life affects everything about that person, from their education and intelligence right down to the music they listen to and their attitudes about politics.

Please. He is a person. He understands it just as well as any other person. Why would you assume differently? What does your statement say about the assumptions you make about people knowing just their sex and 'race'? You feel he doesnt get it because he is a white man who has done well for himself. How is that any different from me saying you dont understand something because you are a woman?

Bigotry is bigotry. Realizing that and removing all the 'ism's from our vocabulary will go a long way towards teaching our children that people are different from one another in many ways, and that one should never judge or treat people differently based on anything but their behavior.

Affirmative action is bigotry and those who support it and utilize it to get ahead in life are bigots. Affirmative action is one of the single greatest things in American society that perpetuates the differences between people. Its a salty, infected bandaid on a massive social wound. There are many other and better ways to improve the plight of the disenfranchised than hand-outs, be it money or jobs, but dont hold your breath waiting for utopian America. By its very nature, it is essential that our society consists of those who have and those who do not... America is not Cuba.

We arent keeping each other down, industry and consumerism and capitalism is keeping some down and elevating others. Social equity deficit and discrimination are problems on a macro scale, not micro, and&nbsp;will only be solved when so addressed. Make sure you really want it, because it will mean the end of America as it is known, and it will mean the end of alot of what you have. Economy begets society. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

By the way,&nbsp;Espagnol is the predominant native spoken tongue in America.

&nbsp;

[Biker]

Hysteria? I think not. What some of us were saying is passing ANY law that promotes discrimination is wrong.

[ShinyTop]

Interesting that we all agree the world will be much better off when body shape and skin color are not what we see first when we look at people but we can turn violent when asked to start down that road by sharing gyms.

[Steve]

I think your comment drives straight at the heart of the matter, ShinyTop.

Equity is when individuals may choose for themselves the associations they wish to make and expect only that they be judged on their achievements and abilities.

Discrimination occurs when preferential treatment is given to even just one person, and that treatment is based on factors other than achievements and abilities. It also occurs when an individual or group's exercise of their rights of association infringe upon or deny the similar exercise of those rights by another individual or group.

[ethics]

Originally posted by DemiGoddess
that was misquoted in the thread that induced such hysteria over women having their own health club states:


Actually, it was an error on the article's part. Why would a law be needed to exclude BOTH genders if they are the ONLY genders that will go in to the health club? I am not sure what the reasons were for doing that, perhaps it was PC thing to do, or perhaps they screwed up, or maybe they wanted a disclosure to exclude lesbians as well, I don't know. But that logic is way off.

[RRedline]

While I haven't had any first-hand experience with Affirmative Action, as far as I know, I know a few others who have. I'll share a few of them with the forum.

I used to be a work study at the printing office at my old university. I worked part-time during the Fall and Spring semesters, and I worked full-time during the summers. One summer, I worked with a very nice woman whom I had gotten to know quite well. As a coincidence, her husband worked as a repairman for Xerox. Our main copier was a quarter-million dollar Xerox machine, and it required routine maintenance. My co-worker's husband and his partner - both white - were assigned to our copier. Anytime anything went wrong or anytime maintenance was scheduled, it would be one of those two who came to do the work.

Well, after my co-worker's husband's partner retired, nobody was hired to replace him, at least not for many months. One day, he was in the office and was obviously very upset. I asked my co-worker why he had not been in his normal cheerful mood, and she explained to me the situation with his partner. Before he retired, Xerox had already decided that his new partner would be Hispanic. Before anybody was even interviewed for the position, it was already known what the person's race would be. Since there were no Hispanic applicants, the position went unfilled for quite some time, and my co-worker's husband was struggling to keep up with all the work, including working a lot of mandatory overtime. There were plenty of qualified applicants for the job, but none of them were Hispanic.

My next story takes place at the actual university (It's a University of Pittsburgh campus, by the way). After graduating from college in Spring 1997, I became very good friends with one of my professors. She was actually my student teaching supervisor. Well, a few years ago, she was asked to serve on a hiring committee for a position that would need to be filled in the education department. It was narrowed down to four people - three white guys and a black female. In every single interview/test/teaching sample they did for these four people, one of the white guys was clearly in the lead for the position, and the black female was clearly the worst candidate. After it was time to make the selection, every member of the committee (including three students who would have this person as a student teaching supervisor whose combined votes would be counted as one faculty member's vote) except one chose the same candidate - the very qualified white guy. One member chose the black female and stated that although she was not as qualified as the other three, hiring her due to her race would be beneficial to the university.

You'd think it would be a done deal considering that it was almost a unanimous decision. However, the university decided to hire the black female. So why did they decide to waste everybody's time by having a selection committee? Wasn't the choice already made? The woman they hired quit after two semesters because she could not handle the job. Guess who was asked to be part of a new hiring committee? And guess who told them to get bent? I'd have done the same thing.

Affirmative Action, as it is currently implemented, is nothing more than legalized discrimination. It's like treating the symptoms and not even bothering to find a cure. In the end, it just pisses off more people than it actually helps. Unless minorities are actually becoming as equally qualified as "the white guys," then what good are we really doing for them? I agree that racism was a very major reason for minorities not doing well economically, but I don't think it is racism that keeps it that way. I think it has become a problem in their cultures rather than continued racism. I just don't understand how anybody can say that being black is a liability in today's workplace. Since I have a background in education and some of my friends are in the profession, I can tell you that it is a FACT that minorities are desperately sought after in public education. "If you are black, YOU ARE HIRED." That is an exact quote from a friend of mine who happens to be the superintendent of a public school. It's very rare that he interviews somebody and finds that they are not white. And isn't THAT the real problem?

[Advocat]

Originally posted by cydweeks
Again, fight for your rights. I would be one that should it come to a vote, I would vote to protect your rights. There are other people in this forum that would vote to protect your rights.

And, now I'm stepping off my soapbox. I think between all the threads I've made my stance pretty clear.
If you need me to sign a petition or something, hey, please don't hesitate to send it on over. :)

Cyd, I appreciate the vote pledge, really I do. :) I too would fight like hell for a women's or other minority rights to fair treatment in hiring, access and promotion...

I just find it interesting that many women will admit there are inequalities in the "equity laws", then in almost the breath say "but that's okay, look at what men did in the past". You know, I've never discriminated against women or anyone else -- damn, I <b>like</b> independent women -- but I keep being told that I can be passed over because "we" men are -- or were -- the privilaged few.

I've never had anything handed to me, I've worked darn hard for everything I've earned, I've never abused anyone, and I've never stopped a woman or minority from getting a job, yet somehow I'm tagged an oppressor that deserves reverse discrimination. And then I'm told that it's ok, I'm male (and white) so I deserve it... and if I don't accept it, I must want to oppress women or other minorities.

I want everyone to be equal, have equal rights, and equal chances. Is that really so hard to believe?

Sorry, didn't do it, don't deserve it, don't accept it.

<small>(Edit: fixed name)</small>

[cdw]

It was me Advocat, not Mel that said that.
Hey, I'm still being told that I was brought up to raise children, to nurture, that my work ethics aren't as good as a mans, that I CANT do certain things because women aren't supposed to do those things, and blah, blah, blah. I just keep doin' what I want, 'cause that's me. And, I'll be there with you when and if you want to fight the ills of the world. I can't account for anyone else, I don't see myself as a "woman", I'm a person. I don't see you as having the frame of mind of the type of person (see, I didn't just say man) that kept me back or hindered me in what I wanted to be or do with my life, so I would help you all I could.
I'm not lumping you with anyone. There are persons here that I would not know in real life because of the way they think. That's ok... although, I'd probably just tell 'em... belly up to the bar boys, quit yer bitchin' and get on with it. Fix it or forget it.

[Coriolis]

Advocat, it doesn't matter whether or not you actively discriminated against women or minorities. I, like you, and like many, many other white males, have not discriminated against women and minorities either. I also have never had anything handed to me, and had to work my ass off to get where I am. But that's irrelevant.

When I first started applying for jobs at universities and institutes, I got passed over for many, many jobs. I actually kept all the PFO (please fuck off ;)) letters to remind me that life ain't easy. Was I passed over for a minority or a woman? Perhaps. Do I care? Not one bit.

It remains a fact that big disparities still exist between men and women, and whites and non-whites, in North America. It's a fact, and can't be denied.

Whatever tactics are taken to ammend the inequality will have to affect ALL "white males" which includes us. I, personally, am willing to give up some of that privilage to see that equality will happen.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by Coriolis
Whatever tactics are taken to ammend the inequality will have to affect ALL "white males" which includes us. I, personally, am willing to give up some of that privilage to see that equality will happen. Two wrongs don't make a right. I do not accept discrimination such as affirmative action, and I will almost always oppose it. If you were passed over for another candidate because you are a white man, then you have been wronged, in my opinion.

Do you supoprt slavery reparations? I am just curious because I think the rationale for supporting reparations to blacks is very similar to the support for affirmative action.

[Advocat]

Originally posted by cydweeks
It was me Advocat, not Mel that said that.

Whups! Sorry about that... see what a higher education can do to you? :haha:

Yeah, you're cool by me Cyd. Equality is definitely a spot that needs work. See you in the trenches! ;)

[Techie2000]

I have a simple answer. It becomes discrimination, when you choose a minority over a white man because he is a minority, and not because he can do the job as good as or better than the white man. I think the whole point of affirmative action was supposed to be that when you had two equally qualified candidates, one minority, one majority, you would hire the minority worker to encourage diversity in the workplace without suffering because the worker isn't able to do his job as well.

[Coriolis]

Originally posted by RRedline
Two wrongs don't make a right. I do not accept discrimination such as affirmative action, and I will almost always oppose it. If you were passed over for another candidate because you are a white man, then you have been wronged, in my opinion.
Well, in YOUR opinion there are "two wrongs". For the most part, I don't consider affirmative action a "wrong", therefore that idiom only applies to way you think, not me. Abuses of the system, are of course wrong -- as any abuses of any system are wrong -- and need to be stopped. Understandably, affirmative action and equal opportunity are open to be abused. As long as that is not the case, then I support it.

EDIT: Techie gives a good example above of how abuses can take place.

Originally posted by RRedline
Do you supoprt slavery reparations? I am just curious because I think the rationale for supporting reparations to blacks is very similar to the support for affirmative action.
Not similar at all, IMO. Affirmative action is designed to raise the educational opportunities and work force presence of minorities who are under represented. Slavery reparations are a way to make those companies who profited from slavery give something back to the black community. Two completely different things.

But, to answer your question, I both agree and disagree with this action. I think it needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If company X got to where it is today because of slave labor, then I have no problem asking them to VOLUNTARILY give reparations to black communities and organizations. And, of course, the same applies with respect to abuses. The money should go directly to underprivilaged neighborhoods and outreach programs, and accountability for use of EVERY CENT of these reparations must be made public. Seems like a no brainer to me. But, that's me.

[ShinyTop]

{tic}I want reparations for the deaths of every Yankee soldier who died giving the blacks their freedom. Until the blacks have reimbursed the northern whites who freed them I don't think they should have the nerve asking for any reparations. {/tic}

So now all current shareholders of the company that profited will bear the consequences. The consequences of <b>legally</b> owning slaves. Can those that came over after the Civil War be execmpted and the repartion lowered that much?

[Stiofán]

I'm afraid I have a similar sob story. I interviewed for 6 years for a contract that would have paid me a minimum of $300,000 - 400,000 a year until retirement, with no maximum. I prepared my entire adult working and educational life for it up to that point as well. A few months after I first applied, the company lost a lawsuit here in California.

I was rejected due to the quota imposed on this company by a state judge, because he determined that in the 1950s and 1960s they hired mostly males. It didn't matter that every other company during that time hired just the same, that was mainly the workforce in our society then. This situation had to be remedied. All of their hires had to consist of 96% female, 3% black male and 1% white male. The company unfortunately had about 90% of their applicants as male - almost all vying for that 1%. They never could fill the female quota, even though they started offering contracts to those with no prior experience, no college degrees, spouses of current agents, etc. I had an additional strike against me, although I didn't know it at the time. My father was an executive with the company. In order to show no nepotism, my application was routinely shuffled to the bottom, I was interviewded and re-interviewed, my finances constantly scrutinized for any deficiency, etc. One of the corporate V.P.s told me later I never had a chance. I was used just to fill the pool with candiates. All they cared about was pleasing the judge and getting the case settled.

After spending my late 20s and early 30s in pursuit of this opportunity, I moved on. I eventually got other contracts (though nowhere as rich as this one would have been). I never sued for reverse discrimination (although others I know did), but it would have been a waste of time and money. Saddam Hussein would have more a chance spending the holidays with the Bush clan at camp David than a white male wining a reverse discrimination suit. That's just the way life is. You deal with it and move on.

Would I have preferred a more honest and fair opportunity. Would I have preferred not to be lied to for years. You bet. But there is nothing I can do about it, now is there. So I made changes in my life and pursued other avenues.

However, for those posting here that what happened to me was fair, or since woman suffered for so long, I should suffer as well, bullshit. <i>I was not born onto this earth to make up for the inequities of the past</i>! And that's the bottom line.

[Neo]

There is no such thing as reverse discrimination, just discrimination. That very phrase "reverse discrimination" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. By its very creation it clouds what is otherwise a clear issue.

Whenever you give preference to someone solely on race you are discriminating. It is completely irrelevant what their race is. When you try to pussy foot around it with some half ass explanation you are being intellectually dishonest or a racist.

Affirmative action as practiced today is a disgrace. Affirmative action as it was originally created and initially practiced or proposed to be practiced was a wonderful idea.

I am looking forward to the Supreme Court putting the boot on the upcoming affirmative action case it will be hearing.

When you give preference to one person over another based on race your practicing discrimination. Discrimination, discrimination, discrimination, discrimination........

[ethics]

Originally posted by Matrix
I am looking forward to the Supreme Court putting the boot on the upcoming affirmative action case it will be hearing.


When is this due, by the way? I'd like to keep closer to the pulse so if you could provide any additional info (or anyone else) I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Neo]

Originally posted by ethics
When is this due, by the way? I'd like to keep closer to the pulse so if you could provide any additional info (or anyone else) I'd greatly appreciate it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/01/scotus.affirmative.action/index.html

The case is Grutter v. Bollinger, Case No. 02-0241 if you want to track it more closely including at the Supreme Court web site.