Debating Points

The New York Times has an interesting piece on Obama and his views on affirmative action. He has always supported race-based preferences, but has also suggested we might need to look at class. This is enough to alarm some supporters.

The Times does see some good coming out of this:

His ruminations about shifting the balance between race and class in some affirmative action programs raise the possibility that, if elected in November, he might foster a deeper national conversation about an issue that has been fiercely debated for decades. He declined to comment for this article.

1) There's a "possibility" he "might" foster a deeper national conversation. Hard to argue with that.

2) So we've had a fierce debate for decades, but I guess it hasn't been that deep.

3) After saying Obama might create a deeper national conversation, I love the irony of the last sentence. I guess the debate only starts after he's elected.

4) I certainly favor a national conversation, though my guess is the most significant thing Obama would do, if he got the chance, is replace one of the five conservative votes on the Supreme Court, which would make our law do another 180 on the subject.

5) Is class-based affirmative action becoming more popular because the public is rejecting race-based affirmative action, and class (along with "diversity") is a useful proxy for race?

6) The Times idea of a deep national conversation seems to be getting someone elected who calls race-based affirmative action "absolutely necessary" arguing with people who support it even more. Since the majority of the public opposes race-based affirmative action, and votes it down every chance they get, it seems to me a truly deep national conversation should at least have someone in there (perhaps the guy who's elected President) representing this point of view.