Affirmative Action

In the 1960s during the hey day of the civil rights movement, the concept or policy known as affirmative action was enacted. The idea behind affirmative action is to not only end discrimination against certain groups in American society but to attempt to make up for the consequences of that past discrimination. It carries government action beyond the notion of equality of opportunity to one of equality of result. Supporters argue that it is reasonable to pursue these policies in light of centuries of discrimination, that simply outlawing discrimination won't make up for the position that many of the affected groups find themselves. Equality of opportunity doesn't exist for those groups since they find themselves at such a disadvantage. Opponents see this as nothing but discrimination in reverse, that currrent generations are punished for the sins of their ancestors.

The Supreme Court has, in a series of rulings, confronted the issue. In the Bakke case the Court ruled that the use of quotas in college admissions was unconstitutional. In two cases that dealt with admissions policies at the University of Michigan the Court reaffirmed its opposition to quotas but ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions was not a violation of the Constitution.

Today, the idea has taken on a broader context. In addition, to race other factors may include gender, socio-economic status and geographic location.

Is it proper for colleges to use these factors when selecting its student body? Does the university benefit from creating a more diverse student population?

What to Make of Sarah Palin?

In the summer of 2008, the country was introduced to Sarah Palin when Republican presidential candidate, John McCain tapped her to be his running mate. The then Governor of Alaska was a relative unknown at the time. Since that time she has become the center of attention among many conservatives and Republicans who see her as presidential timber and Democrats who view her with a degree of scorn.

Most recently, the former governor, has written a best selling book, joined Fox News as a news analyst, and served as the keynote speaker at the Tea Party Convention. Many speculate that these moves have been designed to keep her in the public eye as she positions herself as a GOP favorite to oppose President Obama in 2012.

Washington Post political reporter David Broder recently wrote that Palin is someone who needs to be taken seriously:

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Time magazine's Joe Klein takes a somewhat different view:

The speech was inspired drivel, a series of distortions and oversimplifications, totally bereft of nourishing policy proposals — the sort of thing calculated, carefully calculated, to drive lamestream media types like me frothing to their keyboards. Palin is a big fat target, eminently available for derision. But I will not deride. Because brilliance must be respected, especially when it involves marketing in an era when image almost always passes for substance.

Recent polling data still suggests a bit of skepticism about what Sarah Palin has to offer:

VIEWS OF SARAH PALIN
Now 11/2009 7/2009
Favorable 26% 23% 23%
Not favorable 41 38 37
Undecided/
Haven't heard 32 37 39

Though among conservatives she is a very popular figure:

VIEWS OF SARAH PALIN
All Liberals Moderates Conservatives
Favorable 26% 16% 15% 46%
Not favorable 41 58 47 26
Undecided/
Haven't heard 32 25 37 27

How do you view Sarah Palin? Is she someone we should take seriously? Does she offer what is needed in Washington?

A Mirror or a Mediator?

James Madison in Federalist #10 takes the view that a representative is more the mediator of interests than a mirror of the people's wishes. He makes this point in comparing the workings of a republic versus those of a pure democracy.

"...to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

Much has been made of the public opposition to current health care legislation as evidence that Congress would be wrong to pass such legislation now in its current form. (Of course, the polling data is a little misleading, see here. A good number of folks oppose the bills because they don't go far enough.) The question then is, would the Congress be acting improperly in face of the public opposition to the legislation? Or should we expect our legislators to carry out their duties based on what they perceive as being in the public interest?