I was listening to the radio the other day, and a couple of law professors were on talking about John Roberts.

Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that children of illegal aliens should be allowed an education because education is a cornerstone of America and we're punishing people who didn't choose to be here, as well as their children and their children's children.

John Roberts has come out against this ruling, and accused his (party? firm? I forget which) of not doing everything they could do to oppose it.

He's also against Affirmative Action, and wants to put the weight of evidence on the cause rather than the effect of a law. That is, a law is discriminatory not because it actually causes any problems for one particular group, but because that was the intent of the law, which is almost impossible to prove.

I'm totally against Affirmative Action. I say let the oppressed get stronger if indeed they are being oppressed. Not a solid logical argument, but it suits me as someone who has always been second-guessed because of AA programs.

I have no problem with affirmative action for educational admission based on socioeconomic background (i.e. zip code, family income, and school[s] attended)

Philo

MarkTAW, Where did you find out that John Roberts opposes affirmative action?

The only thing I have seen from him that remotely addresses the issue is a 1985 memo where he claimed there was "intuitive appeal" to the idea that accepting federal aid shouldn't require all programs at a school to obey Title IX (AA). That is to say, if a school accepts federal aid then admissions should apply the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX, but other programs at the same school -- say, sports -- would not be covered.

He supports "program specificity" in the application of Title IX. This puts him at odds with most people and doesn't show him to be a fan of afirmative action, but it doesn't give me enough ground to say he "opposes afirmative action." Additionally, it is a very old source, written while he was working for the regan justice department. Is there anything else from Roberts on afirmative action?

It was a radio show. Sorry, I have no textual/internet references. The speaker (a law professor) could have been referencing the same memo as you, but since I was subject to his spin, that's the impression I got.

If I remember correctly, when he was a junior partner at a law firm, some sort of affirmative action thing came across his desk, and he stuck a memo to it saying that the it wasn't important and they shouldn't bother to read it, and then sent that up to his superiors. Some of the legal terms went in one ear and out the other.

I think this was one of the more tenuous positions put out by the show. Normally they were able to quote him at a bit of length, but this time, it was just a brief quote with a lot of interpretation.

The theme of the show was that we know so little about John Roberts, despite him having a rather long and storied career, so we have to carefully read everything we do know about him.

I've got a radical view here. I don't think they should have Aff-Action in education, and I also don't think they should admit based on academic achievement, or finances either. It's a mistake to admit only on grades. Most schools do that, but then 'round things out' with affirmative action. This is kind of stupid since you end up with low achieving minorities and high achieving majorities in the schools and that perpetrates stereotypes.

I think that public universities should admit everyone who applies who is a legal state resident. But you can only stay if you keep up with your studies. Tuition is free, but you are responsible for your own upkeep, which shoud be challenging enough anyway.

By the way, speaking of John Roberts, if you're trying to make him be a radical right winger, be sure to include this story that just came out:

"Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation"

Oh Bush has got to be kicking himself right now...

Philo

Just as long as they're not black immigrant gays. ;-)

re: education & aff-act: you can equalize by adjusting tuition and grade scores according to socio-economic background.

>I have no problem with affirmative action for educational
>admission based on socioeconomic background (i.e. zip code,
>family income, and school[s] attended)

It doesn't solve the root cause, which is that people from poorer economic backgrounds are given worse educations. Schools need to be funded federally so as to prevent having schools which really, really suck as well as schools which are insanely good.

Right. We should make them federally funded and regulated so that they can ALL suck!

I never said ANYTHING about regulating them federally. In fact, they most definitely SHOULDN'T be regulated federally.

You think the federal government is going to fork over money to state-run schools without oversight?

Can I have a hit from whatever spliff you've got in your mouth? Because I bet it's righteous stuff.

>You think the federal government is going to fork over
>money to state-run schools without oversight?

I see no good reason why two schools with the same number of pupils should receive different amounts of funding.

I also see no good reason why the federal government should dictate the curriculum.

Colm -

Who said there would be a good reason for it?

I say that there should be a good reason for it. You got a problem with that?

Of course not, but you're living in a frilly, puffy fantasy land if you think the federal government will take over the funding of public schools without also insisting on handling their oversight and administration.

It's probably the same frilly puffy land where grabbing women's vaginas without permission in public places is A-OK.

I didn't say it WOULD happen, just that it SHOULD.

LEARN TO READ.

Well I'm sorry Colm I thought we were talking about potential plans for application in reality. I didn't realize that what you wanted was to construct an ideal fantasy and then leave it at that.

Have at it.

Yeah, it's such a freakish fantasy to imagine a world where you could fund something federally and regulate it locally. I mean, it's practically something out of Harry Potter.

Moron.

Harry Potter requires much less suspension of disbelief.