本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/7 00:10 編輯

Continuing on the constitution, we debate about Affirmative action.

In all three case of affirmative action, affirmative action is found to be uncontitutional:

Bakke v. Regents, Univ. of California (1978)
Grutter v Bollinger (2003)
Parents Involved v Seattle School District (2007)

What is uncontitutional about it?  In the earliest case
"The fatal flaw in petitioner's preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. . Such rights are not absolute. But when a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on ancestry or the color of a person's skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest.  Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. For this reason, that portion of the California court's judgment holding petitioner's special admissions program invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment must be affirmed. "


The judge has something to say about the arguement used.  (The affirmative action here is again ruled to be unconstitutional)  Can you see the merits basis for competition here in use?

"First, there does not appear to have been any consideration of the use of race-neutral means to increase minority business participation in city contracting. Second, the 30% quota cannot be said to be narrowly tailored to any goal, except perhaps outright racial balancing. It rests upon the "completely unrealistic" assumption that minorities will choose a particular trade in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population.

Nothing we say today precludes a state or local entity from taking action to rectify the effects of identified discrimination within its jurisdiction. If the city of Richmond had evidence before it that nonminority contractors were systematically excluding minority businesses from subcontracting opportunities, it could take action to end the discriminatory exclusion. Where there is a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified minority contractors willing and able to perform a particular service and the number of such contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality's prime contractors, an inference of discriminatory exclusion could arise.  Under such circumstances, the city could act to dismantle the closed business system by taking appropriate measures against those who discriminate on the basis of race or other illegitimate criteria.  In the extreme case, some form of narrowly tailored racial preference might be necessary to break down patterns of deliberate exclusion.

Nor is local government powerless to deal with individual instances of racially motivated refusals to employ minority contractors. Where such discrimination occurs, a city would be justified in penalizing the discriminator and providing appropriate relief to the victim  of such discrimination. Even in the absence of evidence of discrimination, the city has at its disposal a whole array of race-neutral devices to increase the accessibility of city contracting opportunities to small entrepreneurs of all races.

Because the city of Richmond has failed to identify the need for remedial action in the awarding of its public construction contracts, its treatment of its citizens on a racial basis violates the dictates of the Equal Protection Clause."
本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/7 01:04 編輯
The US constitution is kept being used in the debate like this.  What did the Constitution say?

The ...
dye 發表於 2010/7/6 23:08

To use the Zelman case to compare the HK funded system is like saying Nazi Germany is a democracy (Hitler is elected by a general public vote system, after all!)

Government voucher in the Ohio program goes DIRECTLY INTO THE INDIVIDUAL, that is, in the case of HK, even if the individual chooses to go to a private school, or even an IS, the same voucher pays for it (or at least an equivalent amount of aid given to students who go to funded schools/private schools which government would pay for bought seats) Notice that ISes costs are high mostly because the schools (and the individual) receives no aid whatsoever, the equivalent voucher or ceasation of the funded school system altogether will make ISes far more price competitive with funded schools.

In case you don't even know what's a school voucher:

In HK, government funding directly goes to the SCHOOL, NOT the individual, no individual can go a random private school and use the government voucher.

The same deal goes to the school bus issue - the school bus service directly goes to the individual, and has no religious content, an individual can use the same school bus service to go any school, a same deal in HK would be government providing buses to EVERY SCHOOL including ISes, as long as they apply for it.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
A New Jersey law authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools - including private schools.)

An honestly similar case in HK will be the Kurtzman case, in which government, instead of providing voucher to the INDIVIDUAL, directly pay for school teacher salaries:

And while a Legislature can hire, a chaplain to give prayer, it has no right to force people into praying, which is contrary to the case of a funded school in HK.

The merit system won't ever work in HK because the economical ecology is botched - this is a piece of land only needs accountants, businessman, lawyer and politicians, it has no place for an effective academia or an effective R&D (therefore no place for any long term development), and has no producing industry. It survives to this day purely because some national government decides that financial business will be done exclusively in this place, and heavily subsidize everything sold in this city, as though it's some charity.

And the Legco will never do their job to "safeguard" people's freedom on this, because the "beloved" democrats all got their support from the the education sector/church sector and they didn't even hide it in the days of the previous CE - the way the system is run is simply a disgraceful law since it allows the individual's freedom to be stepped on for some interest group's interest, and no one has to guts to speak up to that just because it's on "the right side" of the cold war, and therefore they found excuses and make remotely dis-similiar comparisons from other countries and pretend they were doing as much.

A democracy is possible only because a people in general recognize every right the individual, and that every right is ought to be protected, even if that individual is not himself. That's why people in US fight for Gay Rights when they are heterosexual, and rule out direct government aid to religious schools (as in paying the school, not the individual) when they are Christians. Nazi Germany ends up Nazi Germany because people cares only about their votes prevailing and not a jack about the individual rights. In the end of the day, that's why Hong Kong people never stand up against it, and make up excuses to pretend there's no such a problem - because they don't want to face what they are, and where they are heading.
本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/7 01:51 編輯

On the cost competition side:
This is an example of a school expenditure 2009:
http://www.cneccc.edu.hk/pop_up/ ... 09_P6night/q&a2.pdf
The government has spent 35,255,809 HKD for a school (p15) with 1239 enrollments (p.5), the equivalent aid given as voucher to a student directly, would be 28455, which is would be surplus for the cheapest international school, and drives the fees of the most expensive schools down by some 25%

On a so-called "pay more for better service argument", this would help:
回復 7# beebeechan

還好我不需要面對這情況....如果校長(或其他人)郁d學生, 算在你身上, 你可以給學生甚麼保證??
至於誰遷就對方較好, 似乎是可以討論的. 但如果有政策令人不滿, 是否不應表達?
回復  沙文

到時他們記你大過加寫爛你TRANSCRIPT時,在香港你沒錢出國可能比小額錢債庭告更嚴重。 ...
Nomad 發表於 2010/7/5 21:13

出國後参加student exchange program exchange咗來港
de omnibus dubitandum
de omnibus dubitandum
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/10 19:38 編輯

The voucher's money also goes to the school directly.  Notice that the money is NEVER in the parent's account?  The individual choice is only on which school to choose from.  Simliarly, there is a geniune choice in HK for school.  (The current subsidy arrangement is based on the number of students enrolled, just as it would happen in a voucher system, depending on age/grade, ranges 32-56k a year)

Ofcourse in the end there is a limitation in choice set by the government.  Notice that even the voucher system has a limit on what school the voucher can go to.  There has to be some minimum bar that the school has to pass before asking for subsidary.   HK is also trying a voucher system for kindergarten school, it has exactly the same problem here.

For IS school, the question is WHY they do not join the government subsidy program?  Why are they UNABLE to enlist in the government subsidy program?  MOST of the schools in Hong Kong is private in the sense that they are only subsidized and regulated, not directly managed.  You are NOT paying for quality, but paying to be DIFFERENT (Segregated in Wenweipao description), so different that the school falls out the SECULAR parameter setup by the government, that is the difference.

Suppose HK also have a voucher system like US, some international schools will still not eligible for the voucher (or they will refuse to recieve the funding to avoid regulation).  With reputation and experience of the charity school, they will still get most of the vouchers (and hence school funding).

For minority interest, there steel making group in US, or the wood selling group in US also dominiate the freedom of US customer's freedom to buy cheaper goods.  If you ever buy diary product, steel product, wood product in US, chances is that your choice is limited because some interest group is 'supporting' the motion (and the party proudly admit it, too).  In democracy, political group siding with special interest group is a flaw that comes with the benefit.

The democrat also recieve support from other groups.  Just because it acknowlege one, does it meant it does not recieve support from others?  When it is one person one vote, if they side with any one interest group and 'significantly' harm the greater group, they will be voted out.

Again, it has to do with the fact that political party is a 'bundled package', there are greater issue over little item.
Here is what the government ask for from a DDS school

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManage ... erence_documents%20(feb2010)r7-revised%206.pdf

Here is the mechanism of choosing school for highschool in HK


教協啲人成日話要小班教學,話可以提升教學質素。如果佢吔真係咁關心教學質素,點解唔評論吓屯門馬可賓中學 ...
Guest from 210.177.124.x 發表於 2010/9/17 11:00

高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies