This is the 9th part of an ongoing series that I've been letting lie dormant for a few months. The series starts here. The links to all the other parts are in the inaugural post. I've been working through the arguments in favor of affirmative action before turning to the arguments against such policies. In this post, I'm considering the argument that gave the name 'affirmative action' to the policy. According to this argument, affirmative action gives approval, support, etc. to those who are too often not given it, and that provides a moral justification for affirmative action.
Race: February 2005 Archives
Jonathan Ichikawa has been complaining (actually starting with this post) that some on the right are talking about the high percentage of abortions among black women as genocide. He's not disputing any of the facts they cite. He just thinks it's too much to call it genocide, particularly given that the people who are making the decisions to kill their fetuses are themselves black. I'm not sure that self-originated genocide is impossible. Why couldn't a race commit genocide against themselves? Even so, I think a number of other factors make abortion less the matter of choice that pro-choicers want it to be a more in the direction of coercion. Most of the post that follows develops from a comment I left on his post.
Outside the Beltway notes that Senate Republicans will indeed change filibustering rules for presidential nominations that have made it past a committee vote. They've targeted Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Two moral issues are raised by this. First, if Republicans chose Judge Brown as the first to do this with simply because she's a black woman, as a number of liberals are claiming, is that immoral? Second, is the removal of this rule a bad idea, as even a number of conservatives have argued?
Pseudo-Polymath has challenged Christian bloggers to defend whatever divisions among followers of Christ are justified (and I assume to explain which ones not are justified and why). He's been chronicling the responses so far.
I'm going to try to do something independent of what people have said so far, almost without referring to the other posts. If I focused on getting into everything the others have talked about, I don't think I would be focusing on the things I consider to be most important about this sort of issue. The one post I do want to mention is Jollyblogger's post. It's not in the roundup above, but I want something he says to be in the background as I move through what I want to say, so I'll start with a quick comment on what he says and then move into the more controversial claims I'm going to defend.
My list of things to blog about has gotten too long and contains a number of things that are too old for me to want to bother with extended comments, so here are some of them that I'm giving up on, along with some more recent ones that I've decided not to comment on but thought were worth a link.
This is the fourth part of what will be at least a seven-part series on Justice Clarence Thomas. The first post is here, introducing the series and explaining the 98-page paper from which I'm taking the content of posts 2-6 (at least) of this series. In "Just Another Brother on the SCT?: What Justice Clarence Thomas Teaches Us About the Influence of Racial Identity", Angela Onwuachi-Willig argues that Justice Thomas' conservatism is a distinctively black conservatism with a rich history in black conservative tradition. I've already looked at that history and the general themes of contemporary black conservatism. This post focuses on how those themes lead to today's black conservatives' positions in three particular issues: education, affirmative action, and crime.