How is affirmative action in universities legal?

Under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is clearly stated that “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you read further into Title II, Section 4, Part ‘c’, universities are clearly included as facilities that must adhere to this law, since they participate in interstate commerce.

Hence, my question stands as this: Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which appears to clearly state that discrimination of this nature in universities is illegal, how is affirmative action still allowed?

 

How is it even morally justified?? Why does this horrible monstrosity of hypocrisy still exist?

Don't know, don't know. Only know it is a sad thing indeed.

 

Does it even still exist?

I know that universities still give preferences to children based upon who their parents were- i.e. legacies. How is this different?

 

It isn't that different actually.

 

Because we still have mediocre public policies that merely sacrifice the end to the means, contrary to the "dictates of plain reason and legal axioms".

 

It was made illegal in Michigan. I voted to make it illegal. My parents didn't like that though. My mom especially. She grew up in Alabama during the civil rights era and remembers how hard black people fought.

But I just think it would be more productive to give preference to the poor and people from families who haven't had a generation in college yet rather than just black people. For all they know it might be a black kid from a very well off family with multiple generations of college graduates.

 

Consider this perspective, why would anyone need affirmative action, if that person could not claim to be in poverty in our republic. If our only civic obligation is to end poverty, then we should have no need for more complicated public sector intervention in private sector markets.

 

"give"...that says it all right there.
It would be better for the country if people had to EARN their way to the top... if they can....
Poor people can EARN their way into college by way of academic scholarships...No one has to "give" them anything. Anyone can study and excel..poor, rich, negro, white...anyone. No excuses. No rationalizations. Study.

 

While I agree with your concept, such a Standard of ethical and moral conduct would need to be fixed by our elected representatives to government.

From one perspective, merely having the burden of a tax for Government on Earth, is a form of moral failure on our part.

 

Well of course.THAT train LONG AGO left the station...No one in this multicultural anti white infiltrated government wants ANY minorities to have to EARN anything.
Merit, skills, knowledge and aptitude all take a back seat to making everyone "feel" good about themselves.
Everyone gets a medal no one is a "winner". Don't let anyone excel.It might male others feel insecure or...DISCRIMINATED against..keep everything dumbed down so the lowest common denominator is the goal.
Excellence for none. Mediocrity for all....

 

Are you glad for Man's invention of money and the institution of money based markets as a form of Capitalism. What is not to love about Capitalism, when one has enough capital?

 

Capitalism? Weren't we talking about letting unqualified people into schools ahead of qualified candidates?

What kind of communist nonsense are you talking about now?

A lot of wisdom and far more experience than you possess is in these few quotes;

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan

"Communism is the graveyard of ambition"
–Daniel R. Bou Diab

"Don't listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do."
- Nguyen Van Thieu, the President of South Vietnam.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' "
–Phelps Adams

 

Merely, that actually solving poverty in our republic instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation and expecting different results should eliminate any need for affirmative action programs since persons in our republic would no longer be able to claim to be in official poverty.

 

Poverty will never "end". obama can't do it, romney can't do it jesus can't do it. It's called "life" and life can be hard sometimes.

You can't legislate "equality"..Nothing on earth is "equal".

You can't legislate "fair". Fair is what you take your kids to and ride the merry go round.

One must take responsibility for ones self and rise based on their OWN abilities.

Maybe you're very young and idealistic. Perhaps that accounts for your naivete.

 

The main reason AA is bad now, is because there are too many people who are quick to threaten lawsuits of they are not given what they want......Many schools will give more points to less qualified members of minorities out of fear for being sued and caled racists.

 

It certainly does. There are entire departments set up in many universities to deal with the utilization of affirmative action.

Regarding my personal opinion on fairness, both are wrong. However, my OP was quite specific: In terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is clearly states that it is illegal for establishments that engage in interstate commerce (this includes most universities) to use discriminatory practices based upon race (i.e. affirmative action). I am personally against preferential treatment to legacies, but, unlike affirmative action, this is legal under the Civil Rights Act.

 

Wow. Did danielpalos and I actually agree on something?!

 

I can only speak from recent personal experience;

I worked for a few years for a couple of African American ladies, in the government service.
Both were honor graduates with advanced degrees from a local all-black university.

Neither of them spoke anything resembling proper English, and neither of them could compose an email or draft an official document that didn't contain egregious spelling and grammatical errors.
It was embarrassing.

I cannot imagine that any accredited university would have graduated these two ladies unless there were strong 'affirmative action' motivations and politics at play.


And before any of you knee-jerk injure yourself rushing to the keyboard to cry, 'racism', let me share with you some of my other personal experiences;

* I currently work with a great number of African American men and women, and many of them are my close friends.
* ALL of them speak and write English in a splendid and proper fashion.
* One of them is a graduate of the University of Georgia, two of them graduated from Auburn, and the rest are high school graduates.


The two ladies I spoke of earlier were exceptional cases, and clearly they had benefited from 'affirmative action' during their time in college.

 

The key was when you mentioned they were in govt. service...Black run cities always fill up as many govt jobs as possible with negroes..unionized negroes..It creates an artificial black "middle class" where there ordinarily wouldn't be one.

The more blacks in a city, the more crime. White taxpayers leave. Then taxes are raised to account for shortfalls in the budget..More white taxpayers leave, more blacks are appointed/elected by "their people" to government jobs...The city becomes completely dysfunctional. Look at ANY black majority/black run city.

Hell..in alabama they can't even afford to repair Legion Field...The negroes hate Bear Bryant (he was white) anyway because he fielded teams that were 80% white...That's "racist" you know and the negroes resent anything that points out or highlights their inability to live like civilized people in civilized society.

The 71 percent Black residents of modern-day Birmingham... lack the financial skills and planning ability for ensuring the structural integrity of the buildings they "inherited". Just like in detroit for example.
Urban Blight? Declining property value? Virtually no legitimate economic activity? Crime and poverty? All hallmarks of a community that is all-Black.

 

I cannot speak to black-run cities.
I have no experience in such matters.

My experience is with the federal government workers, mostly Army civilians.

And yes, there is a culture of 'affirmative action gone way overboard' inside the federal workforce.
Here is how it goes;
* White men can be disciplined, and even fired, for poor performance.
* White women, not so much.
* Black men are rarely ever disciplined or fired for poor performance.
and
* Black females are virtually un-fireable, no matter how poor their performance.
A climate of weakness in management, coupled with a fear of grievances and lawsuits, has set the stage for black females to get government jobs, and then ride the gravy train all the way to a fat retirement check.

I'm not being racist, trust me.
I'm just stating the honest truth about how it is in the government workforce.

 

Are they unionized?
Unionized govt. employees get amazing benefits...they can't be fired...and since some politicians (take soetoro for instance and the way he stole GM and gave it to the UAW) pander to unions they ALWAYS vote for and donate to the candidate that supports unions...they certainly won't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

The federal workers belong, most of them anyway, to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
The AFGE was a HUGE campaign contributor to the Obama campaign in 2008, and he paid them back with practically the first executive pen stroke;
He repealed the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), a 'pay for performance' personnel system that the AFGE hated.

The NSPS streamline the grievance and appeal processes, which was anathema to unions.
It also mandated well-documented performance counseling.
The centerpiece of the NSPS was that managers could take money away from the paychecks of weak performers and lazy slugs, and give that money to the strong, motivated performers.
And you know that the unions can't stand for any of that.

Obama, with the repeal of the NSPS, did several things at once;
* He paid back his union cronies
* He set the government service back decades
* He destroyed all the hard work that many fine men and women had put into the formulation and implementation of the NSPS
and
* He guaranteed that the culture of the lazy, lethargic government union-shop worker would be the norm. And in the process, he won their undying support for the next election cycle.

He's a scumbag, and it doesn't matter what color he is.
A scumbag is a scumbag, plain and simple.

 

Why does the right not insist on reducing social spending for real persons instead of waging our wasteful, War on Drugs through that form of public sector intervention in private sector markets.

 

You may be resorting to a fallacy by confusing poverty with merely being poor. Official poverty can easily be solved through public sector intervention in the market for labor as easily as our current regime of minimum wage laws is now, with existing infrastructure and existing laws.

 

That would be much less the case if they could not claim they would otherwise be in official poverty.