Agreed, but I don't think I am arguing that. I am saying that our standing before the law should be race neutral and no laws or policies in our courts should take race into effect unless the crime considered is specific to race.
If student A has higher grades than 50 other students and they all got jobs and she did not despite being more qualified, having more experience and having better grades, does it really matter if she is black or white? Our laws say if the is a minority she has standing but not if she is white, due in part to the 'reasonable minority' rule, which gives minorities trump over lawsuits in court..
. . .
No, do you believe the AA policies, and racial set aside laws, etc are then constitutional if they do not give whites equal standing?
The laws are unconstitutional either way if they base policy on race.
I believe the same problems could be better solved by creating more opportunities for all people so there isn't this false "scarcity mentality" and fear of competition over limited resources
This solves both sides by: 1. addressing the root cause of oppression that minorities complain about; 2. opening up more positions and opportunities so nobody is left out as the minority.
Better ways to close the gaps are to support programs that address the gaps in education, knowledge of laws and property ownership, financial business management, media and technical literacy, etc.
Not by quotas. By people reaching out and helping those in need. So this includes all people equally.
Even Obama's personal research into reparations resulted in the conclusion that solutions to address poverty
in general was naturally going to help Blacks who are disproportionately behind on the curve due to 150 years of
being enslaved as property instead of not being able to own and pass down property. (Where I would add that the fear and rejection of "white man's" property laws and corporate run government are an ADDED complication obstructing recovery with a vicious cycle of blame and victim mentality dividing people from helping each other.)
So as long as you focus on what is causing poverty and debt, and work to eliminate the causes (not by bandaids and handouts, but longterm education and training to break out of the poverty cycle and mentality),
this will naturally help "minorities" of all kinds, and no group has to be targeted by race, etc.
The one place I would recommend using race is if people already identify themselves with race related churches, businesses, parties, schools, etc. I would recommend using the community representation that motivates them to work most effectively. So if this involves racial identity, that's fine as long as it is self-chosen to affiliate that way. Nothing wrong with race as a factor there in how someone chooses to identify and affiliate.
The laws about AA were correctly found to be unconstitutional the way they were written and implemented.
The way they were set up was "off" to begin with. (In Houston, when urban groups first met to set up AA programs, the focus was on empowering people through investment, not quotas. But when legislative and political agenda got mixed in, it turned into something else. So I would recommend going back to the original idea of community leaders investing in their own solutions that meet the needs of their local populations, where they are free to affiliate by race or whatever "by choice" and there is no need to mandate this based on race, for example.)
There are better ways to create equal opportunity, that do not require regulations, penalties or quotas based on race. Schools and communities should be rewarded for setting up programs to teach ANYONE how to break out of poverty and recover from hardships. People will NATURALLY flock to groups they relate to, so OF COURSE the Black groups will focus on outreach with members who respond to that, and same with Latino groups. There is nothing wrong with people CHOOSING to organize and focus by race or culture, just not to impose by force.
The same solutions would create equal opportunities by creating more schools, paid internships, jobs etc. to serve more people in every community. So there would no longer be a need to "complete" for the same positions if people are instead taught and rewarded for creating MORE positions
where EVERYONE can either be studying, teaching or working at their best potential or working toward that.
None of this has to be mandated by fines or punishments. It can be done freely by donations, investments, tax deductions, etc. similar to how businesses are created or succeed by voluntary patronage when they serve the needs of their base audience.
Sorry if this wasn't clear.
