--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it's irony, but basic principles of ethics, if the > Supremes are to void AA > to advance racial and/or gender equality, then AA > should be abolished for > athletes and alumni children, too. . . . > > Of course, the law doesn't reflect ethics but > instead the current balance of > economic and political power, along with precedent > (which reflects the > balance of economic and political power in the > past). >
Well, yes, but you wouldn't want the law to reflect "ethics," namely, the moral preferences of the judges deciding the cases, would you? I mean, that's part of the problem here. The moral questions are supposed to be decided by the legislature, in a constitutional case, by the ratifying process. That gives us law, which the judges are supposed to interpret regardless of their moral preferences. However, we have an S.Ct that fiunds aff action morally offensive,a nd is overriding the law to impose its moral views on the law. In general, a comparatively morality-free process of judicial interpretation is a good thing, not a problem with law. In the concrete case, it's not obviosu to me that nonracial preferences are anywhere nearly as problematic as racial ones, given our bad history and present of race relations. I think aff action can be justified, but anyone who doesn't see that it is at least somewhat problematic, taht it needs to be justified, isn't seeing straight. Legacy aff action is obnoxious partly because, given the history, the legacy admits are more likely to be white. Athletic aff action doesn't strike me as problematic at all. jks __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
