Skip to main content

Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice

Memo To: President George W. Bush
Cc: Karl Rove
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: The "Taking Clause" Erased

To be honest, Mr. President, until the Supreme Court on Thursday announced its 5-to-4 decision limiting the property rights of all Americans, I assumed that upon the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist you would not name Justice Clarence Thomas to fill that vacancy – and that you would probably be wise to avoid the controversy his nomination would bring.

But after reading Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion in the New London, Conn. case, I think his wisdom, his judgment and his perspective so clearly fits him to be Chief Justice that the American people would not permit the kind of political firestorm that accompanied his appointment to the Court by your father 15 years ago.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the minority and was properly scathing in her criticism of the opinion that government can use its power of eminent domain to foster economic development. But writing separately, Justice Thomas understood that the Court's action in itself is unconstitutional, a "dangerous" act because the American people now have no other recourse to regain control of their property rights except by another amendment to the Constitution.

We thought we had this protection in the Bill of Rights, specifically the "taking clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which clearly states that private property shall not be taken "for public use, without just compensation." At issue in the New London case was the city's expropriation of 15 perfectly good homes to a private developer who planned to make different use of the property -- with the city hoping to get higher tax revenues in the process. The owners refused compensation, wishing to remain in their homes.

In the opening of his dissent, Justice Thomas says:

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that the law of the land . . . postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property. The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for public necessity, but instead for public use. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a [P]ublic [P]urpose Clause, (or perhaps the Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society Clause, a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is legitimate and the means not irrational. This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use. I cannot agree. If such economic development takings are for a public use, any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent.

In all my years either reporting on the Supreme Court, as a newspaperman, or following its decisions as a political analyst, I've never encountered a decision as brazenly unconstitutional as to be frightening in its implications. My first thought was "this is communism." Except that the government must still provide monetary compensation that another court would ultimately decide, there is nothing different from a communist expropriation of private property with the good intentions of making things better for the "community" at the expense of the landowners. The New York Times, which predictably hailed the decision under a headline, "The Limits of Property Rights," sounded more like Pravda in its conclusion: "New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs."

In his distinguished years on the Court, Justice Thomas has been regularly derided by black politicians as a "conservative" who has been insensitive to the needs of blacks that could be satisfied by judicial rulings. It is they who have been insensitive as to how he has been protecting their fundamental rights by protecting the Constitution. Here is how he concluded his dissent:

If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect discrete and insular minorities, surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms to victimize the weak.

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Courts public purpose test an unhappy one. In the 1950s, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of public use this Court adopted in Berman, cities rushed to draw plans for downtown development. Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them. Public works projects in the 1950s and 1960s destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely lower-income and elderly Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; [i]n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as Negro removal. Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the slum-clearance project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

Mr. President, if you had already decided against Justice Thomas as I had, please reconsider. There is no one else like him in America. He was born to be Chief Justice at this time of the nation's life.

* * * * *

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

In the beginning....

Everyone said Thomas did not, and could not 'clear the bar' of intellect and knowledge.

As he has performed more and more to the liking of the Republican 'bent', his stock continues to rise.

He may wear out his welcome.

I agree with Vox.

Scalia 'ain't gonna let that happen.'

Hell, the Republican Party isn't going to let that happen.

Whatever his role Thomas is a liability to African America.

PEACE

Jim Chester
I think the opinion in New London took us from a democratic republic to something more akin to Red China or the Soviet Union. It absolutely astounds me that the government can take from one private citizen and then give to another private citizen for commerical gain alone. Whose home or office building is safe? What is next....

sorry I got all caught up in the opinion, Thomas will never be CJ because he would never get past the senate review. Sad to say, but I think it will be Scalia, or some new Dementor.
Nobody ever said, at least not I, Clarence Thomas is stupid.

But where is his wisdom when the issue impacts people like him; us?

His use of that wisdom has shown itself to be disappointingly selective against his own.

And...make no mistake, he is ours; like it or not.

I have not followed Justice Thomas' rulings closely. I have seen the writings of others offereing a list of reasons why he is 'less than needed.'

The single example of Election 2000 was such a blatant example, and of such tremendous significance, there is no other need.

No argument withstanding, all he had to do was abstain.

His deed is done.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Lofton, please tell me how any elected leadership could be worse than a negro in place for 30 years working to overturn the civil rights gains of the past? Tell me how that could be worse Lofton......tell me who else as an individual is in position to stop thousands if not millions of blacks from opportunity that is elected into office? Please clarify your statement.......
I forgot that self-hating negro was the only justice to rule against a black man who had unfair treatment in the jury selction phase of his trial....Clarence Thomas hates blacks so much that he is willing to leap over 8 white justices to rule against a black man........here is an interesting article:


Clarence Thomas' States Rights
Posted on Jun 23, 2005 - 03:55 PM by blackvoice


Recently a case from California was brought before the United States Supreme Court over the issue of a District Attorney's office using their pre-emptory challenge rights to remove all Black jurors from the trial of a Black man named Jay Shawn Johnson.

Johnson's lawyer objected to those removals o­n the grounds that they were unconstitutionally based o­n race. Johnson was found guilty and convicted by an all-White jury for killing his White girlfriends 19-month-old baby. The United States Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 vote last week sided with Johnson's claim that racial bias was used by the DA in removing the three remaining Blacks from the jury.

Justice Paul Stevens wrote that California's standard for showing jury bias was too strict. However, the o­ne dissenting Justice, Clarence Thomas said that California had a right to craft its own rules to remove jurors. Thomas wrote that: "states have wide discretion, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, to experiment with solutions to difficult problems of policy."

Now I don't know exactly where Clarence Thomas has his head buried, but it has not been in history books. He said he was born in the south during the time our same government was experimenting with states rights and he would have been prevented from sitting o­n jury panels because of the color of his skin.

Where were you Mr. Clarence Thomas when it was legal under states rights that a Black man could not even sue or testify against a White man? Believe it or not even in the state of California there was a law that Black people could not testify against their White citizens? That was a state right?

Where were you Mister Justice Clarence Thomas when it was a federal and state right to bar a Black man from even sitting as a judge in any court of this country? Don't you remember Justice Clarence Thomas when it was legal under states rights laws to jail or lynch a Black man or White woman if they were to marry in the south?

The U. S. Senate just voted last week to apologize to us for not passing an anti lynching law sooner. I know you remember Justice Clarence Thomas when it was legal in some states for Blacks to be regulated to sit in the back of the bus, not eat at lunch counters, get health care in the basements of hospitals, go to segregated schools, pay poll tax, and in some states get off the side walk when a White person occupied the same side walk.

I know you would like to return to the "good old days" Mister Justice but I'm glad to know that we have others sitting o­n the bench that understand that some District Attorney's have racial motives for removing Blacks and Hispanics.

We have had cases in Riverside County where Blacks have been removed by the District Attorney's office just because they had the right to do so. We have had defense attorney's complain that an entire court house was moved into a community with a very low Black and Hispanic population for the purpose of not having to even consider us for jury duty.

Yet the statistics indicate that most of the people having to go to court were Blacks and Hispanics. That is the ultimate act of racial discrimination, similar to creating new neighborhoods just because Blacks or Hispanics move in. Based o­n this decision by the High Court, we must revisit the situation in Riverside to evaluate its practice of removing Blacks from serving as jurors.

I hope the District Attorney in both Riverside and San Bernardino will look closely at their staff members who would stoop to such discriminatory practices of keeping Blacks and Hispanics off various cases. And, when they find such practices take the appropriate actions to ensure they are not practiced in our counties. I would even suggest that a policy be put into place, if not already, that would ensure we do not cater to these discriminatory practices.

I want to commend the eight Justices who could see this practice for what it is, legal racism, and had the back bone to cut it out. Thank you, Justice Stevens for delivering this opinion o­n behalf of the Court.



***And they wonder why black people hate him? puleeze....this ruling is just an example of how f-ked up he is.....he publicly scorned his own sister for being on welfare instead of helping her...another negro with family and black issues trying to take it out on the black race....sounds like someone we all know.....I knew those tormented negroes were a breed all of their own.......
Thomas could be Chief because of Bush's propensity to promote Black's who are the least ethnically sensitive, Rice and Powell are no exception to the rule. While my work does not require that I follow the High Court closely, hot button issues, like this, are of interest.

To be Chief, you would have to think for yourself. Thomas typically votes with Scalia. Some have even posited that Scalia is the only justice with two votes. I tend to agree. Scalia and his wingman Thomas are too entrenched in their views for either to be elevated.

While some have suggested that Scalia will get the nod, I do not share that view. I expect another woman, probably a Latina, perhaps an Asian to replace O'Connor. I foresee someone totally new but definately a man, without a Borkable paper trail to be the next Chief.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
If Clarence Thomas gets nominated for Chief Justice over Antonin Scalia, Scalia will probably try to sell him.


Now we know you must be black. Because if a white poster wrote that, Boy Kevin41 would be all up in their stuff calling them an in-bred racist. Gotta love the double standard.

Anyway, I think Justice Thomas would make an excellent chief justice.
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
If Clarence Thomas gets nominated for Chief Justice over Antonin Scalia, Scalia will probably try to sell him.


Now we know you must be black. Because if a white poster wrote that, Boy Kevin41 would be all up in their stuff calling them an in-bred racist. Gotta love the double standard.

Anyway, I think Justice Thomas would make an excellent chief justice.


There is no double standard, because the comment is not a racist comment. But since you seem to be a bit troubled by your own wrong notion, and since I'm happy with you being pissed, I see no reason to explain why you're wrong.
quote:
more and more to the liking of the Republican 'bent', his stock continues to rise.

He may wear out his welcome.

I agree with Vox.

Scalia 'ain't gonna let that happen.'


It is interesting that when Justice Thomas makes a ruling that the Black Liberal Progressive Fundementalist Front doesn't like they talk in terms of "how much the clock has been turned backward".

A few weeks ago when the SC ruled about the government confiscation of private property to be handed over to private interests AND the Liberals on the court proved to be the majority that allowed it to happen I heard NOTHING in the way of the counter-clockwise movement of the Civil Rights clock.

Even more Justice Thomas aligned himself with the position that Jesse Jackson and other Civil Rights Actor-vists in opposing the confiscation of property in such a manner. Jesse Jackson last year was protesting the taking by force of land in Mississippi (?) from Black people for the construction of some type of manufacturing plant.

So I ask Vox and Mr. Chester - how many hours or minutes did the Liberals (collectivists) on the Supreme Court turn back the clock as Brother Justice Thomas attempted to stop this "theft by taking"?
So I ask Vox and Mr. Chester - how many hours or minutes did the Liberals (collectivists) on the Supreme Court turn back the clock as Brother Justice Thomas attempted to stop this "theft by taking"?---Const. Feedback

I don't remember posting on the 'land issue.' Although I may have.

I am rarely satisfied by the positions taken by Rev. Jackson.

As to public officals, I don't find much reason for hope in the current batch. While I don't think they are any more corrupt than any others, I find them bringing fewer and fewer skills to their jobs, and a disproportionate sense of avarice.

I really don't like politicians, as a genre, even knowing how essential they are to the process.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Jesse is the only national leader who, to my knowledge, has championed the VRA. He spoke about it at the Essence Music Festival and is sponsoring a march in Atlanta on 7/6.---MBM

Your right. His voice is recent.

My dissatisfaction lies in the fact that he is asking for signatures to a petition to extend the VRA, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY.


Temporary protection on the basis of 'race and color' is less than I want, and less they we deserve.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

My dissatisfaction lies in the fact that he is asking for signatures to a petition to extend the VRA, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY.[/i]


You need to read their perspective on the issue. They believe that our interests are best served by focusing the act.

Although some people question whether the Voting Rights Act should be made permanent or should apply uniformly throughout the nation, civil rights lawyer Ted Stephens, Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, indicates that such efforts, no matter how well-meaning, constitute a "trap" that may render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutionally unenforceable. Race-conscious remedies for racial discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate governmental interest. Thus, provisions of the act probably cannot be applied indefinitely, or to regions of the country with no comparable history of race discrimination. The most likely permanent solution would be a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

It is interesting that when Justice Thomas makes a ruling that the Black Liberal Progressive Fundementalist Front doesn't like they talk in terms of "how much the clock has been turned backward".

A few weeks ago when the SC ruled about the government confiscation of private property to be handed over to private interests AND the Liberals on the court proved to be the majority that allowed it to happen I heard NOTHING in the way of the counter-clockwise movement of the Civil Rights clock.

Even more Justice Thomas aligned himself with the position that Jesse Jackson and other Civil Rights Actor-vists in opposing the confiscation of property in such a manner. Jesse Jackson last year was protesting the taking by force of land in Mississippi (?) from Black people for the construction of some type of manufacturing plant.

So I ask Vox and Mr. Chester - how many hours or minutes did the Liberals (collectivists) on the Supreme Court turn back the clock as Brother Justice Thomas attempted to stop this "theft by taking"?


You must not take in much black media, because blacks everywhere are quite up in arms over that Supreme Court case. Not only will it lead to a dangerous result, it also really was just incorrectly decided.

But just because C. Thomas came out what most of us can agree was the correct side of that case, in holding an opinion of him, you actually believe that that should hold sway over the 90-odd percent of the time when he has stood against black interests?
quote:
You must not take in much black media, because blacks everywhere are quite up in arms over that Supreme Court case. Not only will it lead to a dangerous result, it also really was just incorrectly decided.

But just because C. Thomas came out what most of us can agree was the correct side of that case, in holding an opinion of him, you actually believe that that should hold sway over the 90-odd percent of the time when he has stood against black interests?


90% of the time against "Black Interests" OR YOUR VERSION OF WHAT "BLACK INTERESTS" ARE?

In my view "popularity" of methodologies to achieve racial parity do not necessarily equate to EFFECTIVENSS of such methodologies.

Simply put - it is more correct for you to say that Clarence Thomas has not voted in a way that is favorable to "my perspective of Black interests".

I can argue the point that Newark Mayor Sharpe James has campaigned over 4 terms in office that he has been working in the "best interests" of Black people. The evidence per the real world condition of the city that he presides over says otherwise.
quote:
Race-conscious remedies for racial discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate governmental interest.


I would support a US Constitutional Amendement assuring the Right To Vote.

I cannot say, however that the provisions of the VRA that mandate the creation of majority Black districts work in my favor as a Black man. Chances are that the Black person who is elected into this spot will be of a particular political party and a particular ideology which may prove to be counter to that which I support.

Just as some of you look at Clarence Thomas and say "Black face" - YES but "Does he represent my interests via my perspective" - NO then please accept the same possibility of a Black person inspecting the rolls of the Congressional Black Caucus and saying the same thing that you say about Clarence Thomas.

Though this is not a "popular" view it is no less a "legitimate" view as no one "owns Blackness" and the thoughts and values that a Black person can profess to believe as a condition of membership.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:

But just because C. Thomas came out what most of us can agree was the correct side of that case, in holding an opinion of him, you actually believe that that should hold sway over the 90-odd percent of the time when he has stood against black interests?


90% of the time against "Black Interests" OR YOUR VERSION OF WHAT "BLACK INTERESTS" ARE?

In my view "popularity" of methodologies to achieve racial parity do not necessarily equate to EFFECTIVENSS of such methodologies.


That may be true. However, many people would argue that black people are as human as any other human, and that most of the time, humans act in what they see as their best interests. And if a humongous majority of humans see one particular thing as being in their best interests, then it's a safe bet that it is. So if 90% of us solidly back a certain methodology, then that should stand as compelling evidence that this perspective is closer to objectively correct that the opposing one. I would agree with you if you want to say that shouldn't foreclose further analysis (because let's face it, it appears a majority of white Americans voted for Bush, and he's clearly not working in any reasonable concept of America's best interests), but it's still worthy of consideration.

What's more, Clarence Thomas has issued opinions in which he strays sizably, and at times desperately, from logic and legal principles in order to justify his positions. You should read his opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger. I would suggest that if it takes that kind of stretching (misrepresenting the majority's words, misrepresenting the source of the majority's analysis, and inventing bizarre arguments not advanced in anybody's briefs) in order to support a position disagreed with by such a powerfully overwhelming percentage of black Americans, then Thomas is perhaps not being intellectually honest in his assessment of the law governing that case. And given his history, one need not look to far for a motive as to why. That 90% is looking better and better, IMO.

quote:

I can argue the point that Newark Mayor Sharpe James has campaigned over 4 terms in office that he has been working in the "best interests" of Black people. The evidence per the real world condition of the city that he presides over says otherwise.


What makes you think the majority of people see Sharpe James as this big civil rights fighter? Sharpe James knows how to win elections in black communities. He knows how to sit back and let things happen, and communicate why he should win reelection. He also benefits, in my opinion, from a brain drain in Newark that hasn't produced the most effective candidates to challenge him. But he's not really much of an activist. He's not really hands on in racial matters. I don't see your connection to Clarence Thomas there.
quote:
And if a humongous majority of humans see one particular thing as being in their best interests, then it's a safe bet that it is. So if 90% of us solidly back a certain methodology, then that should stand as compelling evidence that this perspective is closer to objectively correct that the opposing one.



Again we cannot allow MAJORITY to equate to CORRECTNESS.

European history had a long past in which the Catholic church dictated science and what was "Right and Wrong". The MAJORITY at that time believed that frogs came from mud, having appeared out of the thin air after a long winter.

We know know that this "majority" was not correct in their assessment.

I ask you, as a Black person (I assume) begin to look at the IMPORTANT STATISTICS of our people in America to come to the determination as to if the policies that dominate our people are EFFECTIVE.

The recent Urban League report had Blacks as a 1.0 (100%) as a reference point. Blacks came out to be a 76% (? or something like that) of a White person in the area of academic attainment, economic standing and some other points. In my view they figured that it was up to the government and White folks to close the gap. They did not suggest to Blacks that we must do a thing to close the gap. (ie: prioritize education, spend more with local businesses, etc).

I have begun to abandon White Americans as my primary reference and instead I use what I call "Funny Talking Melanated People" as my reference of how to transform into power in America. These people are the Africans, Caribbeans, and Indians who are brown skinned and to some extent Asians and Hispanics. They are emassing power and controlling their local economies.

I am looking toward them for BEST PRACTICES on how a group of people might gain economic and political power in America despite not being White.

In my inspection of what they DO (look at Chinatown in Oakland CA) I have concluded that it is possible to overcome your status of being "non-White" by controlling your local community and insuring a high level of standard of living by controlling your CULTURE.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Again we cannot allow MAJORITY to equate to CORRECTNESS.

European history had a long past in which the Catholic church dictated science and what was "Right and Wrong". The MAJORITY at that time believed that frogs came from mud, having appeared out of the thin air after a long winter.


You are starting to go reaching here. We were explicitly talking about whether a person acts correctly in his own INTEREST, not what he believes or has been taught about something like science. If 90% of people believe that frogs come from mud, the analysis of whether that many people can be wrong is clearly different from the analysis of whether 90% of people will make incorrect choices against their best interests. These are two clearly different kinds of issues, not the least bit comparable. Come back to the world of apples-to-apples.

quote:

I ask you, as a Black person (I assume) begin to look at the IMPORTANT STATISTICS of our people in America to come to the determination as to if the policies that dominate our people are EFFECTIVE.


Given that this thread is about Clarence Thomas, this quote assumes, without analysis, that the failure to think like Clarence Thomas is the reason for these statistics.

Local control of your community, control of your culture, and control of your OWN SELF and your OWN ACTIONS will make a tremendous difference in our situation here. I agree with you on that. I'm not asking Clarence Thomas to run around ordering free MBAs to black blue collar workers. I just think that the hypocritical votes he issues are bothersome and counterproductive, where we're concerned.

I think you're using this thread about Clarence Thomas to springboard your views on what we need to do as a people to improve our situation. I think you're taking this "black conservative" label further than you need to. Many black people feel as you do about local and economic advancement, and about certain cultural deficiencies that contribute to the ongoing nature of the problems. But just because those views may sound somewhat "conservative" with a little c, doesn't mean that the bigtime national Conservatives with a capital C -- AKA the "right wing," are aligned with your interests.
CF,

Thomas supported bans on AA after being born and raised in the racist azz antebellum south. Any resulting bans on AA has always led to lowered black college enrollment, contracting and particpation in various professional sectors...now as a black man......why would I logically support such a policy stance...or anyone who thinks along those lines.....

Those who offer their criticisms of liberal politics, through which ALL rights of black people gained in this country was facilitated, make me wary of their motives. As a person fairly well-versed in policy analysis as a student and instructor, I find it ironic that those who support the right never have any policy alternatives that have even a slim chance of attaining those same college enrollment and professional inclusion levels. When alternate policies such as the 10 percent plan worked even better for blacks in Texas, it was the conservative establishment that complained while the liberal black establishment lauded the results. Those who try to get me to think differently from the black majority or criticize the black majority stance without offering policy alternatives and promoting them vigorously....come across to me as working to weaken the black political structure or serve their inherent calling as an uncle tom azz lackey serving white racist conservatives........I am open to change....but criticism alone does not mean shit....and I understand the concept of more favorable and progressive policy outcomes from a measurable standpoint......anything other than that presented to ne is insulting to my intelligence and I will address that matter accordingly.....fair is fair......
You need to read their perspective on the issue. They believe that our interests are best served by focusing the act.---MBM

I did read it when it was first posted on the board, and several times since.

Their conclusion is precisely why I say their position and intent is ill-conceived.

What trap????

Surely, you don't believe they have to be right simply because they offer a reason for their defeatist, and incompetent rationale??

Their position says that to demand a permanent law invites a challenge as to the constitutionality of the permanence. This says the basis of the challenge is contained the fact that the permanence is given to a specific group, i.e. that group of 'race and color.'

And further that such exclusivity is not given to any other group.

Isn't that interesting.

The 15th Amendment is the rule of law. There has never been a successful challenge as to its constitutionality, if there was ever a challenge at all.

Further, the law (the VRA) carries the very language of that rule of law. 'Race and color' is the language of the rule of law.

AND...there is no limit on the protection contained in that rule-of-law.

What rationale can conclude there is a 'trap' in carrying through on the permanence of the 15th Amendment?

If there is fallibility in the law, there is fallibility in the 15th Amendment which authorizes the enactment of the law.

These are not dumb men and women.

I have to be suspect of either their intent, or their ability to reason in the face of 'Charlie.'


PEACE

Jim Chester
Last edited {1}
quote:
Any resulting bans on AA has always led to lowered black college enrollment


FLAWED REASONING.

Strictly focusing on academic admissions the "ban on AA" did not cause a cecline in minority enrollment as much as they showed the dependency on the presence of such programs for Black enrollment in CERTAIN SCHOOLS.

A minority applicant with a stellar academic record has little difficulty in gaining admissions in any school that he wants to.

At the end of the day, regardless of how you slice it the proper focus on College Admissions should be addressed in the high school and middle school education that these students are being exposed to.

The need for AA in this regard is nothing more than a symptom of the problem up stream.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:

Those who offer their criticisms of liberal politics, through which ALL rights of black people gained in this country was facilitated, make me wary of their motives. As a person fairly well-versed in policy analysis as a student and instructor, I find it ironic that those who support the right never have any policy alternatives that have even a slim chance of attaining those same college enrollment and professional inclusion levels. When alternate policies such as the 10 percent plan worked even better for blacks in Texas, it was the conservative establishment that complained while the liberal black establishment lauded the results. Those who try to get me to think differently from the black majority or criticize the black majority stance without offering policy alternatives and promoting them vigorously....come across to me as working to weaken the black political structure or serve their inherent calling as an uncle tom azz lackey serving white racist conservatives........


I support the top 10 percent plan in Texas.

In my view, in response to your demand for alternatives, the conditions that we see in predominately Black cities such as Detroit, Newark, East St Louis and Benton Harbor where Blacks now have control over once vibrant cities, having all of the elective offices, having the presence of the same real estate that once generated millions IS BECAUSE of our focus on these type of programs rather than establishing firm concepts of economic growth and capitalism to make use of these potential resources.

If the focus in on programs that are needed by Blacks at the confluence between Black and White then where are the plans and policies to achieve economic and academic growth where there is nothing but Black folks?

I am critical of the mainstream Black perspective because you all mainly focus on getting White folks to change so that Blacks might gain relief and an improved standard of living.

The concept of what Black people need to do to improve our position goes largely unchallenged in our community.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

I am critical of the mainstream Black perspective because you all mainly focus on getting White folks to change so that Blacks might gain relief and an improved standard of living.

The concept of what Black people need to do to improve our position goes largely unchallenged in our community.


White America has created the institutions, cultural paradigms, and laws which mute our ability to fully realize the "American Dream". We make progress every day swimming upstream, but can we really maximize our progress if we ignore these constraints to our progress? Beyond that, why would we do that? How is that in our best interests? Are you embarassed to fight for your rights and liberty?

To your last point, please name one credible African American leader who does not also say we must look in the mirror to solve our problems? Just one . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Any resulting bans on AA has always led to lowered black college enrollment


FLAWED REASONING.

Strictly focusing on academic admissions the "ban on AA" did not cause a cecline in minority enrollment as much as they showed the dependency on the presence of such programs for Black enrollment in CERTAIN SCHOOLS.

A minority applicant with a stellar academic record has little difficulty in gaining admissions in any school that he wants to.

At the end of the day, regardless of how you slice it the proper focus on College Admissions should be addressed in the high school and middle school education that these students are being exposed to.

The need for AA in this regard is nothing more than a symptom of the problem up stream.




That is not true.....the gains and decreases in black college enrollment and professional inclusion does coincide with affirmative action programs...you can go read the studies I posted in the other forums and the journal of blacks in higher education....i'm not doing other people's reading for them anymore....and you'll see the contradiction to that stellar record thing for blacks as opposed to whites.....with that in mind....why do you think the white students in AA lawsuits always focus on black students as the reason for their denial as opposed to white kids who scored lower than them and the black kids too....i have been involved in higher education and researching and teaching this schit too long to not know....and you speak of upstream..yes the K-12 schools are a problem....but until they get fixed, are blacks from inner cities and schitty schools suppose to skip college when racist politics caused the disparities in funding in the first plce? That is why remedial bridge courses that bring lower-perforing blacks up to speed are fought against by conservatives and not liberal blacks......and the truly unspoken fact is how the performace gap disappears the higher you go "upstream".....until it zeroes out at the PHD levels.....so it is not black people's inherent lack of intelligence or emphasis on education as culture as the racist whites and uncle tom blacks like to elude to....it is a lack of preparation in lower grades...and until that is resolved...something has to be done where everyone in between has no future whatsoever.....I have hashed this out with the conservatives too any times and I refuse to do it any longer...until they get a national agenda with specific outcomes and start to make it a part of their political platforms....they are just parrots for racist right-wingers, plain and simple.......
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

White America has created the institutions, cultural paradigms, and laws which mute our ability to fully realize the "American Dream". We make progress every day swimming upstream, but can we really maximize our progress if we ignore these constraints to our progress? Beyond that, why would we do that? How is that in our best interests? Are you embarassed to fight for your rights and liberty?


This point goes without saying.

My point is we are dealing with larger institutions that are controlled by Whites and thus are forced to overcome not only the natural preference to hire someone you are friends with because you know them and what they are capable of doing but also Blacks must deal with the latent racism that is invovled with employment.

I have no "embarrasment" in fighting for my "rights". I only ask that the fight that is focused upon be one that can lead to a possible victory. Continuing battling on someone elses turf does not afford you the leverage that is needed for long term victory.

quote:

To your last point, please name one credible African American leader who does not also say we must look in the mirror to solve our problems? Just one . . .


I have been to many a Black Political rally in my day. There is no doubt what you say is true about the words spoken at the podium. As soon as the doors are opened and we return back home, however, some of these same pontificators abandon what they said the other day when there is a conflict in our community and race creeps in as the underlying issue.

So often when Whites upon seeing the conflict and attempt to charge the Black person, for example with "Not adequately supervising her children" I notice that the Black community will take a position of defensiveness. Even though these same Black people, absent the racial elements would say "this woman should have done x y z" according to their own values and understanding, the injection of this White criticism causes the Black community to try to save face. Too often we begin to "defend the indefensible".

The solution to this is to be conscious of your own standards, independent of the racial whirlwind that will be injected and work to have your community to live up to these standards.

If your standards are higher than the great public and the outside talking heads are still critical of you it will be clear that they have no case against you and that the incident is an EXCPTION in your community.

If your standads are low and happen to be lower than that of the "mainstream", IF you are comfortable with your standards then their criticism should be ignored because you are comfortable knowing yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
it is not black people's inherent lack of intelligence or emphasis on education as culture as the racist whites and uncle tom blacks like to elude to....it is a lack of preparation in lower grades...and until that is resolved...something has to be done where everyone in between has no future whatsoever.....


This I can agree with you 100% on.

So once again, as I posted on one of these message boards yesterday, we are back to focusing on improving the middle and high school education for Black children to insure that we are entering college at high numbers and preparing ourselves for the work place of the future.

I know of not a single "Black Conservative" who desires a double whammy - eliminate the repair of our public schools AND get rid of AA in college admissions. This truly would be a state of Concussion if this were so.

I am critical of certain educational activists who choose to ONLY focus on the funding gaps between wealthy and poor schools but who don't don't effectively communicate to the PEOPLE in these schools that it is their responsibility to make full use of the limited resources that they do have as WE fight to get you access to more resources to pull the school to an equal funding level with other schools.

As I get older I can't help but notice the increasing number of time wasting, attention grabbing fads that do noting more than entertain the minds of our young people who are vulnerable because they are not inside of a cultural framework that respects the need for high educational attainment.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:

Those who offer their criticisms of liberal politics, through which ALL rights of black people gained in this country was facilitated, make me wary of their motives. As a person fairly well-versed in policy analysis as a student and instructor, I find it ironic that those who support the right never have any policy alternatives that have even a slim chance of attaining those same college enrollment and professional inclusion levels. When alternate policies such as the 10 percent plan worked even better for blacks in Texas, it was the conservative establishment that complained while the liberal black establishment lauded the results. Those who try to get me to think differently from the black majority or criticize the black majority stance without offering policy alternatives and promoting them vigorously....come across to me as working to weaken the black political structure or serve their inherent calling as an uncle tom azz lackey serving white racist conservatives........


I support the top 10 percent plan in Texas.

In my view, in response to your demand for alternatives, the conditions that we see in predominately Black cities such as Detroit, Newark, East St Louis and Benton Harbor where Blacks now have control over once vibrant cities, having all of the elective offices, having the presence of the same real estate that once generated millions IS BECAUSE of our focus on these type of programs rather than establishing firm concepts of economic growth and capitalism to make use of these potential resources.

If the focus in on programs that are needed by Blacks at the confluence between Black and White then where are the plans and policies to achieve economic and academic growth where there is nothing but Black folks?

I am critical of the mainstream Black perspective because you all mainly focus on getting White folks to change so that Blacks might gain relief and an improved standard of living.

The concept of what Black people need to do to improve our position goes largely unchallenged in our community.




* I think you have my perspective confused if you think I ever thought about changing white folks....I doubt like hell if you'll find that in a post of mine...so that is your interpretation of what has been posted....which is fine.....but unless I say something literally....it does not aply to me...that is a rule of thumb for me.

I referred to economic independence as a basis of political leverage....but just because one attains that independence they will still need a politcal agenda...black people spending their money together and saving the communites are a start....but not a catch-all solution....there have to be steps taken to allow the masses to become globally competitive......and educational attainment is something we both agree on as a solution.....


and in relation to your other post....there are plenty of black conservatives who want to eliminate AA...and neglect public schools by diverting money to voucher programs that are not able to serve the needs of all black kids.....just the ones with resources for transportation associated with transfers to voucher schools.....there are plenty of black conservatives that do not stand for ANYTHING the black majority stands for.....which implies black people cannot think for ourselves and they, like the whites they parrot know what is best for blackpeople.....which is insulting in itself.....

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×