David bernstein writes:
"What difference does it make to a recent immigrant from Columbia or Argentina
who lives in New York or Miami if Mexicans 70 years ago in Texas were discriminated
against? "
It wouldn't if the discrimination 70 years ago against Mexicans in Texas were a one
shot deal, that had no present effects.
But discrimination against Latinos in our country has been ongoing, and has present
effects, just as slavery has present effects for african americans even though it
ended almost 150 years ago. . A Latino applying for a job for instance, is going to
run up against the same stereotypes regardless of whether they are a recent immigrant
or a 5th generation native. (not to mention the cross pollination of anti-immigrant
attitudes which, at least until 9/11, were, in the recent past, largely directed
against latino immigrants.) For example, the record indicated that 70% of Hispanics
attend segregated schools
And even if Latinos weren't disadvantaged, they have a unique cultural experience
which the university could conclude adds to the diversity of their campus, just as
they might with Arab Americans, (or French immigrants, given our recent anti-Gallic
problems.)
Of course, different groups of latinos may have different assimilationist or
discrimination experiences (Contrast more European groups , like Argentians or white
Cubans with groups which are more African or Indian, like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans.)
And, individual Latinos can more easily than African -Americans, pass into the larger
society if they wish, by intermarriage, etc. But this does not mean that Latinos are
not still a disadvantaged ethnic group.
Perhaps people who are merely Spanish -surnamed, for example, although not otherwise
ethnically or culturally Latino, should not get a diversity boost. Or perhaps
different groups of Latinos should be treated differently within these policies.
(Michigan, for example, distinguished between mexican americans, puerto ricans, and
other hispanics) But this is merely an argument that affirmative action plans should
take intragroup differences into account - not that Latinos as a class shouldn't
qualify.
yb
yb
*********************************************
Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
Associate Professor of Law
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 427-2737
(email:) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*****************************************************
> ----------
> From: David Bernstein[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: Discussion list for con law professors
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Puzzles re: Grutter and Korematsu
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me. What difference does it make to a recent
> immigrant from Columbia or Argentina who lives in New York or Miami if Mexicans 70
> years ago in Texas were discriminated against?
>
>
>
> IN any event, as a factual matter, Latinos have, as a class, been subject to
> pervasive racial discrimination in this country for centuries, regardless of whether
> many or most are recent immigrnats.
>
>
>
>
> As for another comment by Yvette: "In any event, whether many Latinos think that
> they are white, whatever that means, is not relevant. even if true which I doubt.
> They, as a class, have unique experiences which contribute to the diversity of
> educational institutions," is it not the case that a major part of O'Connor's
> argument was the importance of people thinking that elite institutions are
> representative of society? If most Latinos think of themselves as white ethnics,
> (Mexican-American, Cuban-American, etc.), wouldn't that argument not work for such
> Latinos?
>
> Finally, as for this argument: "Latinos, as a class, have a diverse perspective
> because of their unique experiences in this country, and are underrepresented on our
> nation's campuses, and thus they are certainly within the state's compelling
> governmental interest in attaining racial and ethnic diversity..">
> I think this would apply (a) to a heck of a lot of groups other than Latinos; and
> (b) wouldn't apply to many individuals who are classified as Latinos. Would
> Michigan have a compelling interest in allocating all of its law school slots by the
> percentage of each ethnic group in the population?
>
> According to the district court judge, the law school limited its Latino AA program
> to Mexicans and mainland Puerto Ricans. Based on prior history of discrimination,
> socioeconomic status, etc., this makes at least some sense, but the law school,
> having to squeeze its program into the diversity rationale, denied that its program
> was so limited. I'm afraid that unless someone can explain to me why anyone cares
> how many Salvadorans, Columbians, etc., attend Michigan Law School (and perhaps its
> somewhere in the opinion), a state university can indeed now allocate all of its
> slots by ethnic group. As Schuck points out, Arab Americans are already trying to
> make their group an AA category, and we can expect more of the same from others.
>
