Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are assuming that the White student would still have gotten in if the Black student was not accepted. That is not the case. You are assuming that all Black college students got a college education because of AA. Also not the case. In addition, AA was set up to address discrimination for multiple groups, not ravism or Jim Crowe specifically.That’s what makes it so difficult. But it is not fair for a medical doctor, who got into his med school because he was black - and would have been rejected had he been white - and thus went on to a lucrative career. You honestly think that the white student with better grades and scores who had to give up on his dream of getting an M.D. should have to give money to the high-earning black doctor who got in because he was black?
You are very concerned with what is fair to blacks, but what about what is fair to whites?
Why not? Just because a student, in a state/city that provided free college education took advantage of it does not mean he was unaffected by Jim Crowe.Not the black students who got free college educations in the 1940s along with my dad.
That is essentially proving a negative: prove you were not harmed vs prove you were.They don’t have to prove a negative. They have to prove that they were robbed of an opportunity due to their being black.
Stop with your false attacks. I am not assuming all black students got a college education because of AA! Did I not just say how there were many blacks in my dad’s college class in the 1940s, before AA?You are assuming that the White student would still have gotten in if the Black student was not accepted. That is not the case. You are assuming that all Black college students got a college education because of AA. Also not the case. In addition, AA was set up to address discrimination for multiple groups, not ravism or Jim Crowe specifically.
Well not enough to ruin his life. He got a free college education provided by the government, and had a successful life. You think the government that paid for his college should also give him reparations?Why not? Just because a student, in a state/city that provided free college education took advantage of it does not mean he was unaffected by Jim Crowe.
This is true, but the point of the thread is to show why repararions based on race is unconstituional. It can be granted on an individual basis if damages are proven.
Well not enough to ruin his life. He got a free college education provided by the government, and had a successful life. You think the government that paid for his college should also give him reparations?
I would think the blacks in my father’s college class were GRATEFUL for being in America, where taxpayers provided free college for qualifying students. I know my dad sure was.
Or better yet, declare it officially without merit. The last American Black person who directly experienced Slavery died over a half century ago.IOW, the case for reparations has to be on an individual basis, not skin color.
The First Republican President Sent Americans Off to Kill Their Fellow Americans on Behalf of AfricansBlacks are not entitled to reparations.
Your goal posts are rubbery Lisa. So he got a free state education, the same that everyone else did…and that exempts him from reparations for any damages Jim Crowe may have caused? EVERYONE has benefitted in some way from government programs.Well not enough to ruin his life. He got a free college education provided by the government, and had a successful life. You think the government that paid for his college should also give him reparations?
As I recall, Blacks in your father’s era were segregated, forced to get an education in underfunded, under resourced schools, denied many jobs and paid less, legally restricted in where they could live or travel, eat or sleep or shop or socialize and subject racial violence if they did not toe the race line. When you say they should be “grateful” for all that, I wonder why? Many talented Black musicians and entertainers moved to Europe where they were welcomed on equal footing. This “grateful” statement comes off as “let them ear cake”.I would think the blacks in my father’s college class were GRATEFUL for being in America, where taxpayers provided free college for qualifying students. I know my dad sure was.
How dare those “Aframs” want to end slavery.The First Republican President Sent Americans Off to Kill Their Fellow Americans on Behalf of Africans
The Aframs owe us reparations for causing Lincoln's White-Replacement war. The $20 trillion they've leeched off the taxpayer for unearned entitlements will do just fine.
But not Jim Crowe.Or better yet, declare it officially without merit. The last American Black person who directly experienced Slavery died over a half century ago.
No. The black kids, like the Jewish kids, who won free college paid for by the state back in the 1940s probably felt grateful that they lived in a country that would provide them with such a great education. I know my father said, well into his 90s, how grateful he was for the opportunities here in America.Your goal posts are rubbery Lisa. So he got a free state education, the same that everyone else did…and that exempts him from reparations for any damages Jim Crowe may have caused? EVERYONE has benefitted in some way from government programs.
As I recall, Blacks in your father’s era were segregated, forced to get an education in underfunded, under resourced schools, denied many jobs and paid less, legally restricted in where they could live or travel, eat or sleep or shop or socialize and subject racial violence if they did not toe the race line. When you say they should be “grateful” for all that, I wonder why? Many talented Black musicians and entertainers moved to Europe where they were welcomed on equal footing. This “grateful” statement comes off as “let them ear cake”.
No. The black kids, like the Jewish kids, who won free college paid for by the state back in the 1940s probably felt grateful that they lived in a country that would provide them with such a great education. I know my father said, well into his 90s, how grateful he was for the opportunities here in America.
Segregated? In NYC, where both my parents grew up, had integrated schools. My mother, as a young teacher in the early 50s, taught in integrated schools. The blacks has the identical opportunities as the whites.
And what the HELL is wrong with being grateful. That’s the problem with leftists - downplaying all the great things in America and trying to get people to be resentful and feel they are entitled to free whatever.
Because Jim Crowe affected many aspects of their lives including the right to freely travel, go to public recreational areas, get equal pay etc.So, yes. I am pretty sure that the blacks in my father’s college (and my mothers, and my aunt‘s, and my uncle’s - different colleges) were grateful that they lived in NY where they got a free college education. Why should they get “reparations” on top of that? Taxpayers ALREADY paid for their college and gave them the foundation for a successful life.
Eh. There were a lot of restrictions and prejudice on Jews too. My parents did not focus on that. They were both grateful for having a government that paid for their college, and enabled them to move beyond tenement life.…
NYC may not have been segregated, but many other places they may have traveled to or through was and so was the threat of violence.
Nothing is wrong with being grateful but it is the expectation or demand that one should be that comes off as arrogant because it ignores the reality of their lives. Like saying a slave should be grateful for his master’s hand me downs ignores the fact he is still a slave even though he is probably grateful.
Because Jim Crowe affected many aspects of their lives including the right to freely travel, go to public recreational areas, get equal pay etc.
We’ve argued this before. The restrictions weren’t legislated into law for Jews and even a college education didn’t prevent Blacks from being redlined. Or hired for tbe same jobs at far less pay. So gratitude is certainly there for education but it doesn’t mitigate or make tbe ugly reality of Jim Crowe become any better.Eh. There were a lot of restrictions and prejudice on Jews too. My parents did not focus on that. They were both grateful for having a government that paid for their college, and enabled them to move beyond tenement life.
Education SHOULD be the great equalizer but that wasn’t often the case with Blacks in your father’s era.And I, as their daughter, am grateful as well. Because the government gave free educations to my parents, I was brought up in middle class comfort. Sure, things weren’t perfect. They were so bigoted in NY after the war that Jews couldn’t get hired, so my dad and a slew of his Jewish friends moved to DC to get a government job.
So the same would be with the black classmates. Because the government gave them free college educations, THEIR children were bornin middle class comfort. Now why should the children, born middle class and ultimately enjoying Affirmative Action, get reparations?
While Jim Crow laws were reprehensible and tragically reprehensible from the get go--there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to defend or justify them--they were not enough to justify reparations. There is no constitutional right to a specific drinking fountain or be provided a public swimming pool or admission to a specific public school.The question has been raised as to why reparations to all blacks is unconstitutional, and the answer of course is that the government cannot give money to an entire race of people based solely on their skin color. Cases must be decided on an individual basis.
The following are two examoles: one of a black who deserves reparations, and another of those who don’t:
Deserves reparations:
Black 70-year-old who lived in Alabama: this particular black was deprived of equal rights for not being allowed to drink at certain water fountains, swim in certain public pools, or attend certain public schools.
Not qualified for reparations:
The children of the blacks in the below 1941 photo of CCNY college students, all of whom received a free college education. As a result, the children were raised by college-educated parents and probably went to college (and even grad school) themselves. These children would now be in their 70s, and THEIR own kids in their 40s.
IOW, the case for reparations has to be on an individual basis, not skin color.
The Frederick Douglass Society, CCNY 1941 · CUNY Digital History Archive
The CUNY Digital History Archive is a participatory project that centers the experiences of students, workers, faculty, community residents, retirees, and alumni of the City University of New York.cdha.cuny.edu
Says the "person" whom herself or her family members have received reparations for being Jewish.The question has been raised as to why reparations to all blacks is unconstitutional, and the answer of course is that the government cannot give money to an entire race of people based solely on their skin color. Cases must be decided on an individual basis.
The following are two examoles: one of a black who deserves reparations, and another of those who don’t:
Deserves reparations:
Black 70-year-old who lived in Alabama: this particular black was deprived of equal rights for not being allowed to drink at certain water fountains, swim in certain public pools, or attend certain public schools.
Not qualified for reparations:
The children of the blacks in the below 1941 photo of CCNY college students, all of whom received a free college education. As a result, the children were raised by college-educated parents and probably went to college (and even grad school) themselves. These children would now be in their 70s, and THEIR own kids in their 40s.
IOW, the case for reparations has to be on an individual basis, not skin color.
The Frederick Douglass Society, CCNY 1941 · CUNY Digital History Archive
The CUNY Digital History Archive is a participatory project that centers the experiences of students, workers, faculty, community residents, retirees, and alumni of the City University of New York.cdha.cuny.edu
Agree….100%.While Jim Crow laws were reprehensible and tragically reprehensible from the get go--there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to defend or justify them--they were not enough to justify reparations. There is no constitutional right to a specific drinking fountain or be provided a public swimming pool or admission to a specific public school.
However unconscionable and stupid such rules are, the person has to be able to show that he/she was harmed, i.e. suffered physical or material damages apart from hurt feelings or being insulted because of such laws before compensation could be reasonably justified. Sixty years after the end of all Jim Crow laws, it would be a nearly impossible task to determine that.
Katherine Johnson PhD was an extraordinary black woman who was so gifted in math she was drafted by NASA for their fledgling space program in 1953. Jim Crow laws were still very much in effect at NASA in 1953, and Katherine had to walk/run 20 minutes from the building she was assigned to get to a black only restroom and then walk/run 20 minutes back to her desk. When the director of NASA questioned these long absences from her desk and got the explanation, Jim Crow laws ended at NASA real fast.
Johnson worked 33 years for NASA and was instrumental in working out math problems that eventually allowed us to put men safely into space and on the moon and get them safely home again.
Ask Katherine Johnson if she was due reparations for growing up and getting her education under the Jim Crow laws, which she did, she would have laughed in your face.
Germany did pay reparations to LIVING Jews who had suffered verifiable physical and material damage due to Hitler's policies leading up to and during WWII with such reparations paid beginning eight years after the end of the war when it still made a difference to those victims and there was still evidence of the crimes committed against them. (The Arab countries had caused some delay by protesting the reparations.)
All Jews were not entitled to the reparations but only those directly and personally affected. Certainly their progeny/heirs were not considered for reparations.
I wouldn't have a huge problem with some compensation paid to black people still living who could reasonably demonstrate that they were materially or physically harmed by Jim Crow laws. But to pay off people just because they have black skin is not only unconstitutional and ridiculous but should be seen as the ultimate insult to black people that it would be.
