July 9, 2011

Gov. Jerry Brown sides with BAMN

From the LA Times:
Gov. Jerry Brown in Friday added his voice in support of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on racial affirmative action in public university admissions. 
In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, because it is part of the state Constitution and not just a law or university policy. In addition, he noted a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said race could be considered in state college admissions if it did not involve quotas or carry predetermined weight in decisions. 
Last week, a federal appeals court struck down Michigan's ban on considering race and gender in college admissions, but that matter is expected to continue up the court ladder and does not affect California. A similar case seeking to overturn California’s Prop. 209 is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban in 1997. 
George Washington, a Detroit-based attorney arguing against the affirmative action bans in both states, said Friday that he was heartened by Brown’s opinion and that it would help the case. “It is very, very important,” he said of the governor's action.

36 comments:

ben tillman said...

Gov. Jerry Brown in Friday added his voice in support of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on racial affirmative action in public university admissions.

Res judicata.

In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, because it is part of the state Constitution and not just a law or university policy.

What planet are you on this time, Jerry? EVERYONE in Calfornia is a minority.

Anonymous said...

A bit OT. Would someone calculate taxes paid by NAMs and non-NAMs, (NNAMs?). Then similar for benefits. (How to handle mortgage tax benefit? Are they already "included" since they reduce taxes paid?)

Total up benefits - taxes per capita for both groups.

Robert Hume

dearieme said...

Things would be so much more transparent (and doesn't everyone call for transparency?)if instead of the mealy-mouthed "affirmative action" people said "race privilege".

Anonymous said...

So now libs want to weigh votes on a proportional bases due to race? Isn't that really what he's arguing, that groups comprising a minority w/in a voting entity are "unfairly disadvantaged" by the fact that they are a minority?

Wow. Can't wait for his argument for proportional voting for gays, for women (who aren't a minority at all), for people of certain age groups (after all we Boomers outnumber others), for people who own cats rather than dogs (or who own reptiles).

I am beginning to think it's time for a revolution.

Anonymous said...

If the thing really were overturned, would this mean that whites would get preference over Asians in getting into Berkeley, UCLA?

Anonymous said...

Talk about torturing the US Constitution if the 14th Amendment means that a state must discriminate on the basis of race. That's about as bad as interpreting the Interstate Commerce Clause to effectively put no limit on Federal power.

eh said...

Dog bites man.

Too Tall Jones said...

Brown's posturing on affirmative action is typical. As Thomas Sowell has noted many times, blacks en masse derive ittle benefit from AA. The primary beneficiaries are white women, and white-run liberal institutions and government bureaucracies that can aggregate associated "diversity" monies to their benefit. It is these purported "friends of blacks" who are getting paid.

http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2011/07/social-philosophy-of-thomas-sowell.html

jody said...

jerry brown is just another jewish guy who hates european peoples and uses their own law system against...

wait. jerry brown is not jewish.

yet he wants affirmative action for the coming majority group in california, mestizos. he wants to bulldoze any barriers to this future and he wants it now.

the majority group, getting preferred treatment, by law? carry on with the deliberate destruction of your own nations, europeans. carry on.

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia says he failed the bar exam the first time. I never knew that.

Anonymous said...

One George Washington tried to build the nation. The other...

Anonymous said...

It's the green shadow!!!

Anonymous said...

"A bit OT. Would someone calculate taxes paid by NAMs and non-NAMs, (NNAMs?). Then similar for benefits. (How to handle mortgage tax benefit? Are they already "included" since they reduce taxes paid?)

Total up benefits - taxes per capita for both groups."

Not really OT at all. Please, someone, do it.

Jimbo said...

Too Tall Jones said...

Brown's posturing on affirmative action is typical. As Thomas Sowell has noted many times, blacks en masse derive little benefit from AA. The primary beneficiaries are white women, and white-run liberal institutions and government bureaucracies that can aggregate associated "diversity" monies to their benefit. It is these purported "friends of blacks" who are getting paid.

Uh, TooTall, I would dispute that. Women do not receive AA in college admissions, nor in most grad school admissions. Blacks, on the other hand, receive massive advantages in all these areas, including financial aid. A black with a good high school academic record not only gets into a top school--he gets a free ride there, even if his parents are middle class. And ditto for med school, if he even does a halfway decent job in college science classes (whereas his white classmates have to have stellar records just to get the opportunity to go to med school, and must take huge loans to pay for med school.) These benefits for blacks dwarf any advantage women receive. Now it is true that relatively few blacks are in a position to take advantage of these things because their average academic performance is so far behind, but that's another matter.

Whiskey said...

I've been wondering when the first politician to argue that Whites should not be able to vote will pop up. I guess its Jerry Brown. Son of a traditional, 1950's Liberal Governor.

Jerry (nominally Catholic) is typical of the elites who HATE HATE HATE ordinary White people. Jerry has no Nationalism to fill his heart/head with a basic structure for making decisions, so he makes it on the basis of his maudlin "concern" for non-Whites and his naked hatred of ordinary White people. Jerry Brown is typical of most White elites, who hate their people and identify with fellow elites in Mexico or India or China.

Whiskey said...

Let me add that this is a wake-up call for White parents not rich (which is most of them).

Here is a story in the OC Register about a local kid, who is part of a team entering Microsoft's International Technology contest, the Imagine Cup. The team is four older guys who never had the money to go to a good university, and talented White kid who ... also does not have the money to go to a good school. He's entering ... Cal State Fullerton. He can look forward despite his talent to very little earnings given the poor state of his degree and anti-White policies at all Universities and colleges. Guy was programming ballistic trajectories in Junior High.

Jerry wants only non-Whites going to the UC system. Thats the goal of all elites -- kill off college for ordinary Whites.

Anonymous said...

"In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209"

Are Asians a minority or not? And aren't Hispanics the majority of California, or close to it?

Let's support affirmative action to help one minority group by undermining the rights of another.

Ben said...

From the decision which overturned the similar law in Michigan, I gather that the successful pro-AA argument was as follows: Laws that have a negative effect on minorities, even if they are not unfair in themselves, cannot require a broader consensus than usual to repeal (for instance, city electorate rather than city council, or state legislature rather than school board), since minorities are by definition disadvantaged in mustering such a broad consensus, and are thus discriminated against by the political process. I see this as nothing less than an argument against democracy, since minorities are more "disadvantaged" the more directly the decision-making body represents the population. In general, laws can be passed at different levels, and naturally a law passed at a high level can require action at the same level to repeal, but now polities are to be subject to an arbitrary restriction on the level at which they can implement policy, lest too much democratic rigor be seen as discriminatory. This argument is insidious, but when taken to mean that a ban on discrimination bans a ban on discrimination, it is ridiculous.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Would someone calculate taxes paid by NAMs and non-NAMs, (NNAMs?). Then similar for benefits.


The name you are looking for is "Robert Rector", of the Heritage Foundation.

He almost single-handedly defeated the 2007 McCain-Kennedy-Bush-Rove amnesty initiative, by releasing the following two reports:


The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
by Robert Rector and Christine Kim
May 21, 2007
heritage.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)....


The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer
April 4, 2007
by Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.
heritage.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes)...

Anonymous said...

"If the thing really were overturned, would this mean that whites would get preference over Asians in getting into Berkeley, UCLA?"

Going back to the old SAT weighted scoring system rather than the current GPA grind game would basically put the schools at +90% white.

Doug1 said...

To the best of my knowledge, which is fairly considerable in this area, the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that affirmative action and related initiatives are Federal Constitution required, just that they are permitted, and don’t run afowl of the 14th Amendment.

Hence private affirmative action initiatives have been upheld, as in Baacke vs. State of California in the landmark decision allow the Univ. of California’s affirmative action programs (short of strict quotas, but that’s been eroded since), and also lots of decisions allowing federal and state affirmative action programs, as federal EEOC administrative law “disparate impact” regulations, though those are currently on shaky grounds.

Never has affirmative action been deemed to be Constitutionally required by the Supremes.

There’s no way Kennedy is going with that. It’s gonna be a loser on appeal in the Michigan case and also

Anonymous said...

"The name you are looking for is "Robert Rector", of the Heritage Foundation."

Lucias, thanks for that. Now someone needs to integrate over the density of incomes for NAMs and NNAMs. Even more non-PC than Rector's work. Would he be up to it?

It's needed in order to reduce the ridiculous guilt burden laid on NNAMs, principally European-Americans.
Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

The liberal gentile elite does it again.

jody said...

yeah i'm not too sure africans do not get most of the benefits of affirmative action. the amount of jobs they get from AA is very high, like, in the millions of job positions. yeah, not EVERY african gets these jobs but many of them do. easily enough of them to have a large scale effect on their average income and standard of living.

in private companies, there are now plenty of make-work administrative positions, essentially "don't sue us" jobs for underqualified and subsequently far overpaid africans.

in the public sector, maybe literally 2 million jobs in total, between the US national government and state governments, are expressly set aside for no skill, no ability africans strictly so they can have a job, any job. oh sure, they don't actually say "These jobs are set aside for high school dropout blacks" but they are. they definitely are.

this is one thing i have wondered about, if obama sees the federal government as the proper employer of africans, and doesn't worry about illegal aliens creating competition in the private sector, since in his view africans are SUPPOSED to be hired by the government for underqualified, overpayed positions.

Edmund G said...

"George Washington, a Detroit-based attorney arguing against the affirmative action bans in both states, said Friday that he was heartened by Brown’s opinion and that it would help the case. “It is very, very important,” he said of the governor's action."

- I'm sure the original George Washington is turning over in his grave to hear all of this.

Too Tall Jones said...

Uh, TooTall, I would dispute that. Women do not receive AA in college admissions, nor in most grad school admissions. Blacks, on the other hand, receive massive advantages in all these areas, including financial aid. A black with a good high school academic record not only gets into a top school--he gets a free ride there, even if his parents are middle class. And ditto for med school, if he even does a halfway decent job in college science classes (whereas his white classmates have to have stellar records just to get the opportunity to go to med school, and must take huge loans to pay for med school.) These benefits for blacks dwarf any advantage women receive. Now it is true that relatively few blacks are in a position to take advantage of these things because their average academic performance is so far behind, but that's another matter.

Jimbo my initial post spoke of affirmative action in general not simply college admissions. In fact, as much research shows, white females receive preferences in job hiring, job promotions, and in government preference programs for "minorities" such as small business loans. See the book "Legalizing misandry:
from public shame to systemic discrimination against men" 2006, by Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Youngby for extensive data on how females have benefitted from affirmative action preferences. The authors write, "Although polls have shown considerable American support for affirmative action, those who advocate equality of opportunity (even in a modified form) have criticized it for...conferring greater benefits on white women than blacks of either sex, for whom affirmative action was originally designed."


Your example of blacks receiving more benefits that women is not at all true. In fact it is the opposite, and is the dirty little secret of "affirmative action." Blacks are put out front to take the heat, while behind the scenes, white females reap most of the benefits, and white males are only to happy to share the additional income brought home by their white wives, girlfriends or relatives, while indignantly condemning the "NAMS". As for "massive" financial aid to black students this too is dubious. White students receive the same Pell Grants as blacks at the lower end, and receive more scholarship, loans and grant money at the higher end. And your notion that there are black med school students walking away without a student loan burden is not feasible at all.

It is true that SOME higher end colleges have recruited mediocre black students but most black students don't attend such schools, and is a fact that most blacks going to college do NOT do so as beneficiaries of AA quotas (See Sowell 2004). Most black college goers go to traditional black colleges, junior colleges or regular State Us for which they are qualified, and they graduate accordingly. The notion of massive legions of blacks "stealing" white admission slots around the country is sheer fantasy. It is the higher end private and state universities that have inagurated quota travesties that make all the headlines, but such quota admissions are not the reality for most black college goers.

Again, see Sowell 2004, 1994, 1981 who shows that well before the AA era of the 1970s, most blacks had already pulled themselves above the poverty line, and had already shows an upward swing of college admissions due to things like the race-neutral GI Bill, not the "diversity" programs of white liberals. It is these more elite institutions, varying by states, supposedly populated by the "good people", that lead the way with AA quotas.

Too Tall Jones said...

..continued...

As far as college admissions, it is true that females do not depend on AA for admissions, but neither do blacks, Both groups have, in general terms, been attending colleges without the significant help of AA for years. However, one of the reasons for more female representation on college campuses is that the SAT bosses added a writing portion to the test, with the explicit goal of reducing the number of men admitted and increasing the female body count. The SAT bosses tipped the balance of standards from a more balanced math-verbal format to a format that would favor females. See: Classroom Communication and Diversity: Enhancing Instructional , 2010 by Robert G. Powell, Dana L. Powell.

QUOTE: "With the inclusion of the writing portion of the PSAT, differences in gender showed a “dramatic” shift. The gap between boys and girls was narrowed considerably."

It is well known that females tend to have greater verbal faculty ON THE AVERAGE than men. The College Board had been under pressure from femminists for years to dumb down the SATs so women could be favored. To do this, they attacked math, the subjects where boys showed a moderate advantage. As conservative Diane Ravitch noted in her article "Showdown at Gender Gap, Forbes, April 7, 1997," said white feminists explicitly called on the College Boards to "to eliminate all questions from the college entrance Scholastic Aptitude Math Test on which boys regularly do better than girls."

Not only have the SAT bosses complied, but they have also increased favoritism for females on the other end of the pipeline. By tipping the once balanced test scales in favor of "verbal" learning, the SAT bosses ensured that females were favored, and deemphasized a subject like math, on which so much of our advanced scientific and technological base depends.

America is very good at turning out "articulate" lawyers and journalists, like white Gloria Allred and Maureen Dowd, but has to depend on (ironically) non-white Third World students to fill the classroom seats in things like engineering, in terms of advanced degrees granted. Christine Hoff Sommers "The War Against Boys" gives much detail on the brave new world of white feminism and how it systematically discriminates against men.

Too Tall Jones said...

Jody said...
yeah i'm not too sure africans do not get most of the benefits of affirmative action. the amount of jobs they get from AA is very high, like, in the millions of job positions. yeah, not EVERY african gets these jobs but many of them do. easily enough of them to have a large scale effect on their average income and standard of living.

One thing you can be sure of is that your claim is nonsense.

in private companies, there are now plenty of make-work administrative positions, essentially "don't sue us" jobs for underqualified and subsequently far overpaid africans.

Actually a substantial number of white people make a living from the "diversity" industry as Sowell showed as far back as his 1975 book Race and Economics.


in the public sector, maybe literally 2 million jobs in total, between the US national government and state governments, are expressly set aside for no skill, no ability africans strictly so they can have a job, any job. oh sure, they don't actually say "These jobs are set aside for high school dropout blacks" but they are. they definitely are..

--- >snip additional nonsense-->-- lmao..
From whence do you get these fantasy figures? From the huge number of southern whites in the employment of government at all levels, or the huge number of white women employed by government-run educational bureaucracies, or various white ethnics that show high levels of public sector employment, like the Irish? Or perchance the ever enlightened Aryan "Brotherhood"? do tell..

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Whiskey,

You are right about the goal of "ordinary whites no longer going to college" being the goal of the elite.

I wish Steve would put together all of his articles about college as a guide for parents - in the guise of US News and World Report.

Steve - you've done too much good writing not to start doing anthologizes. You aren't going to get a book deal - look what happened to Taylor's book "White Identity" - and your writing can find a larger audience with a Kindle book.

The stuff you have done on sports, lowering of standards across the board for academics, military, etc., all needs to be in a book.

Vilko said...

Jod wrote:
this is one thing i have wondered about, if obama sees the federal government as the proper employer of africans, and doesn't worry about illegal aliens creating competition in the private sector, since in his view africans are SUPPOSED to be hired by the government for underqualified, overpayed positions.

Maybe Obama and other influential black people think this, but do they really expect Latinos not to demand their demographic share of cushy public sector jobs?

Actually I think that Obama doesn't really care even for blacks. Michelle does, certainly, but she's not very smart.

Whiskey said...

I would not be surprised if Kennedy DID say Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination against Whites (particularly Straight White Males) was required by the Constitution, or Kennedy's favorite source of law that beats the Constitution in his eyes -- "International Law."

Kennedy has been beating the drums for simply ignoring the Constitution in favor of International Law for years now, this case would be the perfect opportunity. "The Constitution Requires Second Class Status For White Guys!" That's a winner right there ... as long as it is posed as merely anti-White guy not (also) anti-White women.

keypusher said...

If the 9th Circuit decided that Prop. 209 was constitutional in 1997, why is the 9th Circuit considering it again?

Hilary said...

\\\\You are right about the goal of "ordinary whites no longer going to college" being the goal of the elite.\\\\

What a bunch of BS. So about 10 million schoolteachers weren't "supposed" to go to college due to this evil "elite"?

Anonymous said...

The liberal gentile elite does it again.

Oh no, now you've done it. Here come the defenders of the liberal heathen elite to save one LHE fingernail at the expense of, well, anything...

Svigor

Anonymous said...

Hey Too Tall, sounds to me like blacks are getting screwed by AA. So we're both on the "end it now" team, if for different reasons.

What does it matter to you if the gravy train dries up for white wymminz?

I mean, standing behind a policy for which they take the heat, but white wymminz take the rewards, doesn't sound like a smart move on the part of blacks.

You're telling all the brothers and sisters to oppose AA, right?

Svigor

Anonymous said...

Too Tall, another question for ya. "Per capita" appears nowhere in your comments. Are you correcting for population when you assert who benefits most from AA, or are you propping up your argument on a certain, very old, bit of sleight of hand?

"Although polls have shown considerable American support for affirmative action, those who advocate equality of opportunity (even in a modified form) have criticized it for...conferring greater benefits on white women than blacks of either sex, for whom affirmative action was originally designed."

I mean, you've got more than that, right?

Svigor