Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sonia Sotomayor on the colorblind view

tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 4:44:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It doesn't hold any ground. All her evidence (if that even counts as evidence) is irrelevant.
I don't have a signature. :-)
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 4:44:24 PM, Bob13 wrote:
It doesn't hold any ground. All her evidence (if that even counts as evidence) is irrelevant.

Why?

Note that I'm not necessarily talking about affirmative action - rather, I'm talking about whether a "colorblind" view of the issue is ideal.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 4:57:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 4:46:20 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 4:44:24 PM, Bob13 wrote:
It doesn't hold any ground. All her evidence (if that even counts as evidence) is irrelevant.

Why?

Note that I'm not necessarily talking about affirmative action - rather, I'm talking about whether a "colorblind" view of the issue is ideal.

She first claims that race matters, then she proceeds to provide examples of racial inequality, which is exactly why the "colorblind" view makes sense. Her evidence disproves her claim.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 4:58:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The law should be colorblind, regardless of what microaggressions take place in society. The masses should change their views of minorities voluntarily and gradually (likewise, certain minorities should clean up their act). In any case the law should not enact any law that takes race into account.
Affirmative Action should be based on socio-economic background, not race. Racial Profiling also should not be official policy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:15:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 4:57:50 PM, Bob13 wrote:
She first claims that race matters, then she proceeds to provide examples of racial inequality, which is exactly why the "colorblind" view makes sense. Her evidence disproves her claim.

A colorblind view, she says, ignores that race does matter and it's going to matter even if such a view is adopted in policy. She argues that people will be discriminated against even if the government adopts a non-discriminatory view, and that the government acknowledging that race matters and acknowledging that something needs to be done about it is the first step.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 708
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:24:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 5:15:06 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 4:57:50 PM, Bob13 wrote:
She first claims that race matters, then she proceeds to provide examples of racial inequality, which is exactly why the "colorblind" view makes sense. Her evidence disproves her claim.

A colorblind view, she says, ignores that race does matter and it's going to matter even if such a view is adopted in policy. She argues that people will be discriminated against even if the government adopts a non-discriminatory view, and that the government acknowledging that race matters and acknowledging that something needs to be done about it is the first step.

If the government doesn't adopt a non-discriminatory view, that is equivalent to encouraging discrimination.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:50:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 5:15:06 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 4:57:50 PM, Bob13 wrote:
She first claims that race matters, then she proceeds to provide examples of racial inequality, which is exactly why the "colorblind" view makes sense. Her evidence disproves her claim.

A colorblind view, she says, ignores that race does matter and it's going to matter even if such a view is adopted in policy. She argues that people will be discriminated against even if the government adopts a non-discriminatory view, and that the government acknowledging that race matters and acknowledging that something needs to be done about it is the first step.

Would you suggest the laws of America be applied unequally?
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:51:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 5:50:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Would you suggest the laws of America be applied unequally?

I support a color-blind view in most cases -- just articulating Sotomayor's point.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 5:56:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 5:51:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 5:50:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Would you suggest the laws of America be applied unequally?

I support a color-blind view in most cases -- just articulating Sotomayor's point.

I mean, the only thing that makes us Americans is because we follow the same American rules, not because of accidental skin color at birth.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 6:33:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 5:56:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 5:51:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/5/2016 5:50:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Would you suggest the laws of America be applied unequally?

I support a color-blind view in most cases -- just articulating Sotomayor's point.

I mean, the only thing that makes us Americans is because we follow the same American rules, not because of accidental skin color at birth.

I agree. Gov't should be colorblind. Just because societally we socially arent anywhere near the point of colorblindness, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards it imho.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 6:34:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
*because we socially
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 4:58:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The masses should change their views of minorities voluntarily and gradually

You do realize that schools would probably still be segregated if we allowed that, right? I agree that affirmative action is a bad policy, but sometimes, government policy has to serve as a catalyst for natural social change to occur. People were very much against forced integration when it happened, but gradually -- via desensitization -- the stigma surrounding African Americans was drastically reduced.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 7:41:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 7:21:37 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/5/2016 4:58:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The masses should change their views of minorities voluntarily and gradually

You do realize that schools would probably still be segregated if we allowed that, right? I agree that affirmative action is a bad policy, but sometimes, government policy has to serve as a catalyst for natural social change to occur. People were very much against forced integration when it happened, but gradually -- via desensitization -- the stigma surrounding African Americans was drastically reduced.

Schools are still segregated? Right?

Just not the way you think.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 3:49:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
She is absolutely correct.

"Whether race is a burden or a benefit is all the same to the race-neutral theorists; that is what they mean when they speak of being colorblind. They are colorblind, all right"blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today."

"Julian Bond
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:41:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 3:49:35 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
She is absolutely correct.

"Whether race is a burden or a benefit is all the same to the race-neutral theorists; that is what they mean when they speak of being colorblind. They are colorblind, all right"blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today."

"Julian Bond

This assumes that minorities want special treatment. No one wants to be defined by their race or have it be a central topic of conversation. This is especially true if most people in a setting are of one race and there are one or two people of a different race. Let's say nine white people and one Asian person. A non-colorblind view assumes that the Asian person wants to make their race a large part of who they are. But in reality, he'd want to be treated just like any of the other white guys. He wouldn't want to be discriminated even in a "positive" way.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:53:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:41:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/6/2016 3:49:35 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
She is absolutely correct.

"Whether race is a burden or a benefit is all the same to the race-neutral theorists; that is what they mean when they speak of being colorblind. They are colorblind, all right"blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today."

"Julian Bond

This assumes that minorities want special treatment.

I am a minority and my circle of friends and acquaintances is largely minority constituted. Furthermore, I've actually studied this issue, so I think I know a few things or two about what at least some minorities want.

No one wants to be defined by their race or have it be a central topic of conversation.

When people say I don't see you as X, that tends to imply that there is something wrong with being X, such that they have to ignore it or deliberately overlook it in order to treat them decently. I'm perfectly fine with being seen as a black guy - in fact that's how I want to be seen. I'm very proud of my heritage and where I come from, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a black guy. Does "being a black guy" exhaust my whole personality? No. Do I want to be reduced merely to "a black guy"? No. But it's an important component that one has to acknowledge if they want to fully accept me as I am.

And I have no issues with it being the central topic of conversation depending on how the conversation is framed.

This is especially true if most people in a setting are of one race and there are one or two people of a different race. Let's say nine white people and one Asian person. A non-colorblind view assumes that the Asian person wants to make their race a large part of who they are.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that you acknowledge that they are Asian (and that likely comes with a certain set of experiences) like any sane person can see, but attaching no negative significance to that fact. I can assure you that many Asian people see their culture/race a VERY large part of who they are AND THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO IGNORE THIS.

But in reality, he'd want to be treated just like any of the other white guys. He wouldn't want to be discriminated even in a "positive" way.

No, he'd want be seen as an Asian guy that has a unique perspective that doesn't have any less - or more - value than the white guys' by virtue of their being white.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:56:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:41:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/6/2016 3:49:35 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
She is absolutely correct.

"Whether race is a burden or a benefit is all the same to the race-neutral theorists; that is what they mean when they speak of being colorblind. They are colorblind, all right"blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today."

"Julian Bond

This assumes that minorities want special treatment. No one wants to be defined by their race or have it be a central topic of conversation. This is especially true if most people in a setting are of one race and there are one or two people of a different race. Let's say nine white people and one Asian person. A non-colorblind view assumes that the Asian person wants to make their race a large part of who they are. But in reality, he'd want to be treated just like any of the other white guys. He wouldn't want to be discriminated even in a "positive" way.

And furthermore, that doesn't address the context of the quote anyways. You can't address systemic racism by saying race doesn't matter when it clearly does. I can tell you there's a reason why there are far more white people who advocate for a "colorblind" approach than there are POC who do so.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 6:32:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:56:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And furthermore, that doesn't address the context of the quote anyways. You can't address systemic racism by saying race doesn't matter when it clearly does. I can tell you there's a reason why there are far more white people who advocate for a "colorblind" approach than there are POC who do so.

Racism should be dealt with by placing the focus on the people being racist, not on the people who are targeted by said racists.

I'll talk about your previous post here as well:

The problem with a non-colorblind approach especially in states, locations with white majorities is a "normalization" towards white i.e. assuming that white is normal and people of any other race are different. There was a study I read, it was a while ago so I can't link it but you may have heard of it. Separate groups of participants were asked to describe a white guy and a black guy walking down a street. The black guy was mostly described as "a black guy" and the white guy simply as "a guy." You may be okay with that but I'm not. White doesn't mean "normal" with everyone else being deviations from that norm.

The notion that a "minority" wants to be recognized by their race with a "unique" perspective to offer also normalizes whites. In the scenario I gave, are we also looking at each white person as a "white" person with a unique perspective? Or are all white guys just "guys" and Asian guys are "that Asian guy?" Every human being has a unique perspective but prioritizing race unfairly puts people into a position where they are defined by their race and assumes that the opinions they hold and the decisions they make are impacted primarily by race while white people have opinions independent of race. You see this a lot in news articles that talk about the "black vote" but never talk about the "white vote." Rather it's Trump is favored among "working class whites" or "Clinton is doing well with college-educated whites" or "Sanders is doing well with "millennials" which could mean any race but the author already defined "blacks" and "Hispanics" separately. People who aren't white have opinions about important issues which aren't race-based and shouldn't be trivialized yet I've seen several articles now that do this. Explicitly acknowledging people's races (non-colorblindness) often results in people assuming white = normal.

You say Asians see their "culture" as a large part of who they are. That may or may not be true. It shouldn't be automatically assumed.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:02:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 7:21:37 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/5/2016 4:58:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The masses should change their views of minorities voluntarily and gradually

...the stigma surrounding African Americans was drastically reduced.

Hardly, from what I have seen, other than the fact that they aren't slaves/house-workers anymore.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:09:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
"And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way,"

Haha. No.

At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

Absolutely stupid. She misses the crux of the debate by a mile, instead choosing to attack a strawman of the opposition's stance. Unoriginal rhetoric devoid of substance.

It's not impossible to make a decent case in favor of Affirmative Action (or similar policies). Why would she do anything but?

By the way, since when and why is it assumed that people who say "I'm colorblind" are implying race is totally inconsequential in society? Does "I'm" translate to "society in general" now?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:36:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 6:32:40 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:56:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And furthermore, that doesn't address the context of the quote anyways. You can't address systemic racism by saying race doesn't matter when it clearly does. I can tell you there's a reason why there are far more white people who advocate for a "colorblind" approach than there are POC who do so.

Racism should be dealt with by placing the focus on the people being racist, not on the people who are targeted by said racists.

I'll talk about your previous post here as well:

The problem with a non-colorblind approach especially in states, locations with white majorities is a "normalization" towards white i.e. assuming that white is normal and people of any other race are different. There was a study I read, it was a while ago so I can't link it but you may have heard of it. Separate groups of participants were asked to describe a white guy and a black guy walking down a street. The black guy was mostly described as "a black guy" and the white guy simply as "a guy." You may be okay with that but I'm not. White doesn't mean "normal" with everyone else being deviations from that norm.


You don't have to explain the normalization of whiteness to me or to other POC in America; it's a lived reality for us and we are well aware of how race is often conceptualized in such a way to where non-white is perceived as a deviation from the norm.

What I'm saying is that you can be color conscious and not conceive of race this way.

The notion that a "minority" wants to be recognized by their race with a "unique" perspective to offer also normalizes whites. In the scenario I gave, are we also looking at each white person as a "white" person with a unique perspective?

Not really. White people have unique perspectives too.

Or are all white guys just "guys" and Asian guys are "that Asian guy?"

No, they're white guys.

Every human being has a unique perspective but prioritizing race unfairly puts people into a position where they are defined by their race and assumes that the opinions they hold and the decisions they make are impacted primarily by race while white people have opinions independent of race. You see this a lot in news articles that talk about the "black vote" but never talk about the "white vote." Rather it's Trump is favored among "working class whites" or "Clinton is doing well with college-educated whites" or "Sanders is doing well with "millennials" which could mean any race but the author already defined "blacks" and "Hispanics" separately. People who aren't white have opinions about important issues which aren't race-based and shouldn't be trivialized yet I've seen several articles now that do this. Explicitly acknowledging people's races (non-colorblindness) often results in people assuming white = normal.


I agree, and this is something minorities notice when they are young; I'm well aware of this.

You say Asians see their "culture" as a large part of who they are. That may or may not be true. It shouldn't be automatically assumed.

Pretty much all groups of people do; it's safe assumption.

It's like saying "oh, hey, your Irish! cool!" not "I don't see your Irishness, because..."

""Colorblindness" has emerged as central strategy for managing racial diversity in schools, business, politics, and the law, with the hope that deemphasizing racial differences will lead to equality, tolerance and inclusion. However, new research from the Kellogg School of Management shows that promoting colorblindness can lead people to turn a blind eye to even overt examples of racial discrimination and hamper the prospect for intervention."

http://www.prnewswire.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 9:29:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It was a general criticism of a way of approaching the types of issues raised in the case, particularly criticizing Scalia's approach. It holds ground to the extent that Scalia's approach was flawed.

I thought that the dissent's most compelling argument was that the ballot amendment to Michigan's constitution was unconstitutional because it "restructures the political process in Michigan in a manner that places unique burdens on racial minorities. It establishes a distinct and more burdensome political process for the enactment of admissions plans that consider racial diversity." I have been considering that argument, mostly out of an awareness of the many affirmative action admissions programs that pass constitutional muster because they are intended to enhance the education provided to their students through exposure to an ethnically diverse student body. I did not see that the other opinions in this case addressed that point, and the only rebuttals I can imagine are that those race-based programs are themselves unconstitutional and only exist through judicial error (apparently Scalia and Thomas' position), or that race-based preferences that would favor white students would be prohibited as well (two-way street argument, perhaps weak because these programs do not exist AFAIK).
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 8:34:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It is spot on. Scientific studies demonstrate that subconscious judgements influence behaviors towards others of different races and other groups. Until society as a whole can treat people of different races equitably as demonstrated by incarnation rates, etc then race matters. In other words an individual can be color blind, but most are not. We can't say we are a color blind society until a majority of us are color blind.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 9:59:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 8:34:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It is spot on. Scientific studies demonstrate that subconscious judgements influence behaviors towards others of different races and other groups. Until society as a whole can treat people of different races equitably as demonstrated by incarnation rates, etc then race matters. In other words an individual can be color blind, but most are not. We can't say we are a color blind society until a majority of us are color blind.

Do you think the law should apply unevenly on the basis of perceived victimhood?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:10:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Something interesting, Sotomayor is a supporter of critical race theory which in part believes that some laws on the books, even now are racist laws meant to enshrine white power.

What are the worst of these racist laws?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:58:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 10:10:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Something interesting, Sotomayor is a supporter of critical race theory

Wow, shocking.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 11:34:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:56:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:41:03 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/6/2016 3:49:35 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
She is absolutely correct.

"Whether race is a burden or a benefit is all the same to the race-neutral theorists; that is what they mean when they speak of being colorblind. They are colorblind, all right"blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today."

"Julian Bond

This assumes that minorities want special treatment. No one wants to be defined by their race or have it be a central topic of conversation. This is especially true if most people in a setting are of one race and there are one or two people of a different race. Let's say nine white people and one Asian person. A non-colorblind view assumes that the Asian person wants to make their race a large part of who they are. But in reality, he'd want to be treated just like any of the other white guys. He wouldn't want to be discriminated even in a "positive" way.

And furthermore, that doesn't address the context of the quote anyways. You can't address systemic racism by saying race doesn't matter when it clearly does. I can tell you there's a reason why there are far more white people who advocate for a "colorblind" approach than there are POC who do so.

What is the brightline for when it is and isn't okay to consider race in policymaking? Affirmative action (supposedly) helps POC and the intent of the law is obviously racial. Why would it be constitutional under the 14th amendment to have a law that intentionally helps people of a certain race but not a law that unintentionally burdens them? I just want to hear that from a constitutional perspective, not a racial justice perspective.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 11:38:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 4:44:24 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It doesn't hold any ground. All her evidence (if that even counts as evidence) is irrelevant.

Colorblindness is wrong in some cases, when it comes to constitutionality however, it is not only virtuous, but necessary. The color of your skin should have nothing to do with your interpretation of a legal document, and if it does then you shouldn't be on a court who's job it is to examine and objectively determine a legal document. If part of your opinion on why you interpreted a legal document one way is literally admitting you are examining said document with race colored lenses, you are a joke and should have never been nominated for said job. That is my opinion.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 11:43:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 8:34:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 3:37:14 PM, tejretics wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in the dissenting opinion of Schuette v. Coalition:

"Race matters . . . because of persistent racial inequality in society -- inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities . . . And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, "No, where are you really from?", regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: "I do not belong here." In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter."

What do you think of Sotomayor's criticism? To what extent does it hold ground?

It is spot on. Scientific studies demonstrate that subconscious judgements influence behaviors towards others of different races and other groups. Until society as a whole can treat people of different races equitably as demonstrated by incarnation rates, etc then race matters. In other words an individual can be color blind, but most are not. We can't say we are a color blind society until a majority of us are color blind.

Should your views on race seep in to your interpretation of a legal document? Or should a judge's legal verdict in cases be racially biased? Should a judge give a POC a lesser sentence than what he believes is deserved to balance racially disparate sentencing? What is the brightline? When is it okay to look at things through a racial lens and when is it not? Or should we always even when the issue has nothing to do with race?