The article is written with a huge bias, but is the first I've seen on the topic, so I'll use it as the conversation starter. The full text is available here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120889422168035625.html...n_journal_federation

With race looming as a key issue in the fall elections -- perhaps a pivotal one, assuming that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee -- diehard defenders of the racial status quo are going to unprecedented lengths to prevent voters from having their say on government-sponsored racial preferences. Leftist activists are lining up to fight four state ballot initiatives that, if passed on Nov. 4, will outlaw preferential treatment based on race, sex and national origin in public university admissions as well as government hiring and contracting. Knowing that such antipreference initiatives enjoy strong public support -- in fact, they have already passed overwhelmingly in three blue states -- the activists have zero interest in waging these fights on the merits. Rather, their goal is to keep the initiatives off the ballot by any means necessary, up to and including political chicanery and outright physical intimidation.

The states where antipreferences forces are aiming to be on the ballot are Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska. Leading the campaign, dubbed "Super Tuesday for Equal Rights," is California businessman Ward Connerly, long the nation's leading advocate for colorblind government policies. In 1996, Connerly launched the first such measure, the California Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposition 209; he was drawn to the issue by his realization, as a trustee of the state's university system, that race was routinely the key determinant in whether a student was accepted or rejected at California's public colleges. Following a bruising campaign, marked by Proppsition 209 opponents' relentlessly attacking supporters as racist, the initiative passed by eight points. Two years later, a near-identical measure won by 16 points in Washington state. And in 2006, despite a powerful Democratic tide, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative likewise passed by a decisive 58% to 42%.

In fact, so powerfully does the issue resonate with voters as a matter of elementary fairness that its support everywhere cuts across traditional party lines. In liberal Washington state, for example, the antipreference initiative was backed not only by 80% of Republicans and 62% of independents, but by 41% of Democrats; this in the face of liberal opposition that -- abetted by such local corporate behemoths as Eddie Bauer, Microsoft and Starbucks -- massively outspent supporters of the measure. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative similarly passed despite the fierce opposition of a liberal-left coalition of 180 groups, ranging from the League of Women Voters and the United Auto Workers to the Arab-American Institute. After the Michigan initiative's passage, the leader of the most radical of the opposition groups, By Any Means Necessary, declared that the only way to stop antipreference measures was to ensure that they never reached the voters.

I am a double minority and believe that any preferential treatment based on race automatically is unfair by its very nature. It will be interesting to see where Obama falls on this subject.

Personally, I'd prefer preferences based on socioeconomic status, not race. Unfortunately, the opponents of affirmative action seem to be focused solely on eliminating it, as if affirmative action is the only challenge to us having a perfectly meritocratic society.

But with legacy admissions, the college admissions system will never be perfectly meritocratic, not to mention the costs of attending non-state schools being a barrier to some students.

And I think it makes sense for colleges to want to have a diverse student body, both racially and socioeconomically. If meeting people from diverse backgrounds is part of the college experience, then colleges should be granted some latitude in how they administer their admissions departments.

Ballot initiatives make sense politically for the Republicans, but I don't think they're good for our education system.

What issue are we discussing here?

We have allready become Socialized.....and you cant honestly say that we are FREE!

where is the Free Market? for jobs? for education? for thinking?
soon you wont be able to post anything of this sort on any blog, because you might offend someone.

And everybody wants a change.....a Change to What? Socializm

...What issue are we discussing here? Racial preferences? The "diehard defenders of the racial status quo"? The ballot initiative itself?

I thought we could discuss, "ballot initiatives that, if passed on Nov. 4, will outlaw preferential treatment based on race, sex and national origin in public university admissions as well as government hiring and contracting". Comments on Republicans supporting them and Dems (or Dem activists, at least) opposing them are also fair game.

Do you know if these initiatives are binding or non-binding?

As for Ward Connerly's quest, I'm in favor of allowing universities to use race as a factor in admissions.

I'm not in favor of using race as a factor in government hiring or contracting.

They appear to be binding. In Cal and Mich, at least, they are passed as Constitutional amendments.

I hate them fiercly, anytime you have to use race or any other factor to recieve preferential treatment it automatically devalues you or your company. Its BS, the group that recieves preferential treatment does so at someone else's who is qualified loss. Basically discrimination by policy to supposably advance equality.

If minorities want to be seen as equal than they need to earn it, if there are factors and variables that make it more difficult than they just have to work that much harder. I do believe in equality of oppurtunity which is what some of these policies are designed to do. However these policies actually devalue minorities, they need to retool and start at ground zero in the communities in which they grow up in not in the collegiate of business fields.

The easiest way to level the playing field if you are at a disadvantage is hard work, if that is not enough than work even harder.

quote:

As for Ward Connerly's quest, I'm in favor of allowing universities to use race as a factor in admissions.

Public universities?

1) You support publicly funded education showing preferential treatment based on race?

2) How would you feel about the same rule applied to elementary schools?

Sure, public universities. Race can be a factor, one of many, in the admissions process.

Do you approve of legacy admissions?

As for elementary education, I don't see the comparison. You're talking about private elementary schools?

quote:

As for elementary education, I don't see the comparison. You're talking about private elementary schools?

Public. Quite a few public schools in NYC have a detailed admissions process to identify gifted students.

But you're not suggesting that public elementary schools in NYC are rejecting students. You're saying some schools are tracked for gifted students, correct?

quote:

Sure, public universities. Race can be a factor, one of many, in the admissions process.

Do you approve of legacy admissions?

I'm not sure of its magnitude, but I can see the case for it. It is a longstanding cornerstone of alumni relations - translation: fundraising.

Without seeing any data on it, I would say it should be discouraged in public schools. It would probably much more difficult to detect or eliminate though.

I should also point out that I see legacy admissions as a completely different topic than race-related admissions. Our government supposedly promised us equal protection, no discrimination, etc. in 1964 at the latest. I think the proper role of government is something closer to color-blind than one that would allow race-related admissions.

quote:

But you're not suggesting that public elementary schools in NYC are rejecting students. You're saying some schools are tracked for gifted students, correct?

My understanding is that a significant number of students are rejected. I am certain that that is true at the high school level.

What I'm saying is, where do these rejected students go? I'm assuming other public schools. Otherwise, NYC would have a fairly large lawsuit on their hands.

I'm not familiar with the NYC school system, but I can only imagine that some schools are tracked for gifted students, while students who don't get into those programs attend the regular public school.

"I should also point out that I see legacy admissions as a completely different topic than race-related admissions."

Well, not completely. They're both non-merit-based criteria, or achievement-based.

And yet they both have benefits, in one case money, and in the other case, the educational benefits that come from having a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic student body in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation.