by liberal japonicus
A continuation of discussion in the previous post. Nous suggested that
And between this and Roe, I think the GOP is going to be in serious trouble with educated suburban women.
While I believe nous is talking about larger problems of college affordability and college debt, in case anyone thinks that the cancellation of affirmative action will cause problems for educated suburban women, this article suggests that it might not be true:
If white women benefit from affirmative action, why do they oppose it?
Half of Americans do not approve of colleges and universities considering race in admissions, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. A majority of white adults disapprove of it, too. About 70% of non-Hispanic white women somewhat or strongly oppose affirmative action, according to a 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
White women have also challenged affirmative action policies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against Abigail Fisher, a white student who said the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race.
There is an interesting discussion related to feminism and intersectionality here, which I hope we might take up in the comments.
Half of this particular go-around revolved around Asian representation at Harvard, and this Vox article is good on explaining why it is a load of crap. The whole ‘OMG Asians can’t get into Harvard’ is pretty amazing to me, given that a few decades ago, there were complaints about Asians ‘killing the curve’.
By the late 1970s and early 1980s, large numbers of Asian Americans began enrolling at elite universities,180 just as these universities started to emphasize diversity in the wake of the Bakke decision. Asian Americans were seen as foreigners on campuses, and there was a backlash to their growing presence. Professor Dana Takagi discusses how resentful White students labeled various campuses having significant Asian American student populations with xenophobic epithets. 181 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) was dubbed “Made in Taiwan” and the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”), was called “University of Caucasians Living Among Asians.” Elevators in buildings with large numbers of Asian American students were called “[t]he Orient Express.” 183 The peril of the mind trope was also readily apparent: White students viewed Asian Americans as “‘hordes’ of ‘unfair competition’” and advised each other not to take classes that had large numbers of Asian American students.
The link that is from is quite good and has this revealing aspect of the SFFA’s case.
SFFA’s legal documents revealed other embarrassing information for Harvard. One particularly troubling example illustrated how Harvard’s Administration appeared to underplay one of its alum’s overtly racist remarks against Asian Americans:
“[I]n 2012, [President Drew] Faust received a letter from an alumnus making racist statements about Asian-American applicants. Specifically, the alumnus urged Harvard to adopt “informal quotas.” Such quotas “would include foreign students and the country of their origin. For example, I would limit the number of Japanese students to a certain percentage or number. . . . None of this, of course, has to go beyond the confines of the dean’s office. The last time I was in Cambridge it seemed to me that there were a large number of oriental students, for example. I think they probably should be limited to 5%. . . . I would appreciate hearing what you might think of my comments.”
SFFA reported that, rather than rebuking these remarks, Harvard Admissions Director Marlyn McGrath responded to the alum as follows (copying President Faust):
“President Faust has asked me to respond to your April 4 letter, in which you offer many thoughtful observations about Harvard College students and the results of the admissions process. . . . All of us at Harvard appreciate your thoughtful letter, as well as your loyalty over the years.” SFFA highlighted that Harvard’s response did not take issue with the alumnus’s comments about limiting the number of “oriental students” at Harvard or establishing informal quotas. While President Faust acknowledged that the alum’s letter was “preposterous,”she did not think it was necessary to rebuke him because he was “a 90-year-old alum who’s given some kind of support to scholarships. He graduated with the class of 1942. He probably went off and fought in World War II.”
Harvard did not dispute that these incidents occurred as stated in SFFA’s motion. It merely (though correctly) stated that the incident had no bearing on the legality of its race-conscious admissions policy. 375 But SFFA’s argument exploited the incident and Harvard’s response in order to pit people of color against each other. SFFA specifically contended that incidents of explicit bias against Asian Americans are not taken as seriously as those against other racial minority groups:
At her deposition, Faust refused to answer whether a letter saying the same thing about African Americans would have deserved a similar “polite and respectful” response. Nor would she speculate how Asian-American students might react to the letter, because they “have not seen these letters . . . . [T]hese are matters of personal correspondence that are not matters of public scrutiny.”
Harvard wasn’t woke enough to slap down a (possible) WWII vet and this is evidence that Harvard in discriminating. The irony, it burns…
The Grauniad has this article with some observations about the case
But in order to win at court, SFFA deployed some stage trickery – disappearing Asian Americans at just the right moment. From the district court to the supreme court, SFFA produced exactly zero students and Asian Americans to testify. Even after forcing Harvard to turn over nearly 100,000 pages of documents, they could not produce a single individual case of discrimination.
Harvard introduced four students, two of whom were Asian American. Sally Chen, a low-income, first-generation Chinese immigrant student accepted in 2015, testified that she was accepted amid a vast pool of valedictorians with perfect SATs and 4.5 GPAs only because of the school’s holistic admissions process. She was able to tell her story, be seen, and valued. Judge Sotomayor noted this in her dissent, writing: “At bottom, race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community.”
SFFA stacked its legal team with former clerks of Judge Clarence Thomas. Then it gave its case gravitas with a blinkered history of anti-Asian discrimination that ignored everything after the 1940s. Thomas later included this version of events in his concurring opinion.
He added: “Given the history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially their history with segregated schools, it seems particularly incongruous to suggest that a past history of segregationist policies toward blacks should be remedied at the expense of Asian American college applicants.”
This article points to the splits in the “Asian-American” community, which I put in quotes, because the concept has a lot of problems.
This Voxexplainer is very interesting and points out the following:
The history of affirmative action starts not in the university system, but in labor policy. According to historian Hugh Davis Graham, the term first appeared in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, a key piece of New Deal legislation that gave employees the right to form unions and required employers to bargain collectively with them. In that context, affirmative action was used as a term to compel employers who had engaged in unfair labor practices to compensate victims.
My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students. While I don’t believe that the Democrats are analyzing it the same way I am, this Politico piece discusses that and also points out that some Democrats want to take aim at legacy admissions.
Democrats are now looking for other legislative options to boost minority admissions at colleges, like ending legacy admissions that benefit children of alumni. Even that bill, introduced by progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), has a slim chance at passage, but it’s a message that resonates with other Democrats who see the proposal as another way to help level the playing field.
This would be very interesting because, much more than defending admission diversity, this would really impact the business model of elite higher education. Anyway, have at it.
Remember the infamous “Hands” election ad of Jesse Helms? And that was not even for higher education.
The underlying assumption (that of course the white person is the most qualified by default) will still be quite effective to-day, I fear.
And the two-pronged attack too (Minority A is inferior and should not get any advantage because that would be unfair to US, minority B is superior, so WE need protection to counter THEIR unfair advantage.).
The main thing is not for it to work everywhere but there where the GOP needs a few extra votes. Those disgusted would not vote GOP anyway.
But cynic that I am, I’d say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage. No doubt they’d find some black legacy student that the Dems (the party of the KKK, you know) now want to discriminate against. They will not present e.g. the lesser Bush or his Orangeness.
Remember the infamous “Hands” election ad of Jesse Helms? And that was not even for higher education.
The underlying assumption (that of course the white person is the most qualified by default) will still be quite effective to-day, I fear.
And the two-pronged attack too (Minority A is inferior and should not get any advantage because that would be unfair to US, minority B is superior, so WE need protection to counter THEIR unfair advantage.).
The main thing is not for it to work everywhere but there where the GOP needs a few extra votes. Those disgusted would not vote GOP anyway.
But cynic that I am, I’d say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage. No doubt they’d find some black legacy student that the Dems (the party of the KKK, you know) now want to discriminate against. They will not present e.g. the lesser Bush or his Orangeness.
legacies….rich people will always have their own kind of affirmative action because they can buy it.
Implimenting broad public policy changes that would result in a lot fewer rich people and fewer poor people would go a long way toward resolving this problem.
legacies….rich people will always have their own kind of affirmative action because they can buy it.
Implimenting broad public policy changes that would result in a lot fewer rich people and fewer poor people would go a long way toward resolving this problem.
My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students.
I would agree that affirmative action draws attention away from the real problem. But while lack of support for students (resulting in limited success) is a problem, I don’t think that is the real problem either. No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level. Given equal quality education there, the closest you need to affirmative action is adequate scholarship funding. Because the students who have gotten in on affirmative action are every bit as bright as anybody else; they just haven’t had the same teaching. (I believe that JanieM made that point in the previous thread.)
My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students.
I would agree that affirmative action draws attention away from the real problem. But while lack of support for students (resulting in limited success) is a problem, I don’t think that is the real problem either. No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level. Given equal quality education there, the closest you need to affirmative action is adequate scholarship funding. Because the students who have gotten in on affirmative action are every bit as bright as anybody else; they just haven’t had the same teaching. (I believe that JanieM made that point in the previous thread.)
I’d say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage.
In capturing the Supreme Court, as in (narrowly) capturing the House, the reactionaries have the same problem: it’s far easier to agree on what/who you don’t like than to agree on the alternative.
It might be easier if they were conservatives, rather than reactionaries. A conservative Court could just slow down the pace of change. Which would irritate the most enthusiastic progressives, but nothing more. However, but attempting to turn back the clock, they infuriate pretty much everybody from progressives thru real conservatives.
Life was soooo much easier for politicians who cater to the reactionaries when they could rant and rave without any fear that they might be in a position to deliver. Now, they’ve got two options:
– do the sane thing, i.e. fail to deliver, and get primaried, or
– deliver, repel the youngest voters (who grew up with today’s world an consider it normal), and lose power for a couple of generations.
I’d say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage.
In capturing the Supreme Court, as in (narrowly) capturing the House, the reactionaries have the same problem: it’s far easier to agree on what/who you don’t like than to agree on the alternative.
It might be easier if they were conservatives, rather than reactionaries. A conservative Court could just slow down the pace of change. Which would irritate the most enthusiastic progressives, but nothing more. However, but attempting to turn back the clock, they infuriate pretty much everybody from progressives thru real conservatives.
Life was soooo much easier for politicians who cater to the reactionaries when they could rant and rave without any fear that they might be in a position to deliver. Now, they’ve got two options:
– do the sane thing, i.e. fail to deliver, and get primaried, or
– deliver, repel the youngest voters (who grew up with today’s world an consider it normal), and lose power for a couple of generations.
Two extracts from the BBC’s coverage:
Trump:”Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!”
That would be unless a rich parent or brother can give you a leg up.
Angie Gabeau, president of the Harvard Black Students’ Association: Harvard already lacks real diversity in many ways and the problem will quickly get worse following today’s decision.
“Most of the black and brown students on campus already come from elite private schools,” she says, and few represent under-privileged parts of the country or come from under-resourced schools.
Two extracts from the BBC’s coverage:
Trump:”Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!”
That would be unless a rich parent or brother can give you a leg up.
Angie Gabeau, president of the Harvard Black Students’ Association: Harvard already lacks real diversity in many ways and the problem will quickly get worse following today’s decision.
“Most of the black and brown students on campus already come from elite private schools,” she says, and few represent under-privileged parts of the country or come from under-resourced schools.
No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level.
And how so? It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools….turtles all the way down.
No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level.
And how so? It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools….turtles all the way down.
The 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision in San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973) ruled no constitutional right to an equal education, held no violation of rights in Texas’ school system, and reserved jurisdiction and management of Texas’ public school finance system to the state.
From here.
All day I have kept wanting to make a comment about the wedding website decision here, and kept telling myself that that’s not the topic at hand.
But really, it’s kind of all the same topic (even if you don’t define the topic as “the corrupt bunch of asshole religious fanatics who dominate SCOTUS these days).
There was a book published in 2004 by Evan Gerstmann called Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Gerstmann said that when he set out to study the topic, he didn’t think there was any right to same-sex marriage to be found in that document, and when he got a certain distance down the road he changed his mind.
I am writing this from memory; I read the book a long time ago. But bobbyp’s 5:52 brought it to mind, because one of the cases Gerstmann writes about is San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez. As a parent who homeschooled my kids, I was appalled at the juxtaposition of two facts: 1) there is, acc’ to SCOTUS, no constitutional requirement that schools provide children with a good education, or even a marginally decent one. 2) kids have to go anyhow.
As a footnote, homeschooling and homosexuality tended to bring out very similar reactions in a lot of people, only not the same people. Right-wingers’ minds shut down at the thought of gay people, liberals’ at the thought of homeschooling. I got so I didn’t talk about any of it unless I was very sure of my context. But — a topic for another day.
The 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision in San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973) ruled no constitutional right to an equal education, held no violation of rights in Texas’ school system, and reserved jurisdiction and management of Texas’ public school finance system to the state.
From here.
All day I have kept wanting to make a comment about the wedding website decision here, and kept telling myself that that’s not the topic at hand.
But really, it’s kind of all the same topic (even if you don’t define the topic as “the corrupt bunch of asshole religious fanatics who dominate SCOTUS these days).
There was a book published in 2004 by Evan Gerstmann called Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Gerstmann said that when he set out to study the topic, he didn’t think there was any right to same-sex marriage to be found in that document, and when he got a certain distance down the road he changed his mind.
I am writing this from memory; I read the book a long time ago. But bobbyp’s 5:52 brought it to mind, because one of the cases Gerstmann writes about is San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez. As a parent who homeschooled my kids, I was appalled at the juxtaposition of two facts: 1) there is, acc’ to SCOTUS, no constitutional requirement that schools provide children with a good education, or even a marginally decent one. 2) kids have to go anyhow.
As a footnote, homeschooling and homosexuality tended to bring out very similar reactions in a lot of people, only not the same people. Right-wingers’ minds shut down at the thought of gay people, liberals’ at the thought of homeschooling. I got so I didn’t talk about any of it unless I was very sure of my context. But — a topic for another day.
It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools….turtles all the way down.
I think you’ve got causality the wrong way around. 50 years ago, you might have had a case. But today? Not so much.
Yes, there is still job discrimination. But there is an acute enough shortage of well educated and capable people that job discrimination is less. That’s why we have hordes of well educated, but not white (by the criteria of our bigots anyway) and immigrant besides, folks from India coming here and holding down high paying jobs. We’ve got lots of people who are bright enough to do those same jobs, if only they got onto the educational path early.
So, deal with the elementary and secondary schools, and you’re well on your way to a solution. Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination. Not trivial, given the reactionaries’ attacks on education. But still, far easier than the other.
It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools….turtles all the way down.
I think you’ve got causality the wrong way around. 50 years ago, you might have had a case. But today? Not so much.
Yes, there is still job discrimination. But there is an acute enough shortage of well educated and capable people that job discrimination is less. That’s why we have hordes of well educated, but not white (by the criteria of our bigots anyway) and immigrant besides, folks from India coming here and holding down high paying jobs. We’ve got lots of people who are bright enough to do those same jobs, if only they got onto the educational path early.
So, deal with the elementary and secondary schools, and you’re well on your way to a solution. Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination. Not trivial, given the reactionaries’ attacks on education. But still, far easier than the other.
wj … did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ……… “deal with the elementary and secondary school” — snap of the finger and we’re set, right?
wj … did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ……… “deal with the elementary and secondary school” — snap of the finger and we’re set, right?
Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination.
Since we’re talking fantasy here, I’ll contradict you without trying to find any evidence other a lifetime of living in the USA.
It is not politically easy to sell better education, especially if you hint that it might tend even the tiniest bit in the direction of equal education. I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.
What fantasy world do you live in? Oh wait, I know, California. 😉
But even there……
Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination.
Since we’re talking fantasy here, I’ll contradict you without trying to find any evidence other a lifetime of living in the USA.
It is not politically easy to sell better education, especially if you hint that it might tend even the tiniest bit in the direction of equal education. I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.
What fantasy world do you live in? Oh wait, I know, California. 😉
But even there……
I think you’ve got causality the wrong way around.
Absolutely disagree with extreme four letter word tossing vehemence. If white folks were beating down doors and flooding the streets in protest to move into black neighborhoods and to send their children to majority minority schools, you might have a case.
But we do not observe this.
Have a nice Fourth, and remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.
I think you’ve got causality the wrong way around.
Absolutely disagree with extreme four letter word tossing vehemence. If white folks were beating down doors and flooding the streets in protest to move into black neighborhoods and to send their children to majority minority schools, you might have a case.
But we do not observe this.
Have a nice Fourth, and remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.
And a good Fourth to all of you from here too. Indulge in self-flagellation for ancestral wrongdoing if you must, but I can’t see that it’s at all necessary for anybody here.
And a good Fourth to all of you from here too. Indulge in self-flagellation for ancestral wrongdoing if you must, but I can’t see that it’s at all necessary for anybody here.
wj,
awareness is not self-flagellation. I say this as a “real leftist”….LOL!
Have a good day.
wj,
awareness is not self-flagellation. I say this as a “real leftist”….LOL!
Have a good day.
I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.
That happened in Texas though no one was waiting in line to cough up more taxes. The state told wealthy school districts they had to share their tax revenues with poorer school districts. It’s called Robinhood. A number of the “poorer” districts spent the money on professional-level sports stadiums.
I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.
That happened in Texas though no one was waiting in line to cough up more taxes. The state told wealthy school districts they had to share their tax revenues with poorer school districts. It’s called Robinhood. A number of the “poorer” districts spent the money on professional-level sports stadiums.
From an old “thought of the day” calendar: “An idea is not responsible for the people who espouse it.”
Variation for CharlesWT: “An idea is not invalidated by incompetent implementation.” Or Texas high school sports insanity.
From an old “thought of the day” calendar: “An idea is not responsible for the people who espouse it.”
Variation for CharlesWT: “An idea is not invalidated by incompetent implementation.” Or Texas high school sports insanity.
Hey, I live in California too, and suffer no such fantasy.
Things that might put a dent in education inequality…
Universal pre-k with a better focus on building towards literacy and numeracy and with free lunch for all children.
Adequate funding for infrastructure and materials in all public school districts.
An end to the standardized testing regime and its curricular contraction.
…but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children’s success will be attenuated.
Rich districts, by and large, outperform the scores of the top scoring countries in educational outcomes. Well off districts are up to the educational standards of the top scoring countries.
It’s not our pedagogical system that is broken, it’s our social support systems that fail our learners.
And that’s before calculating in the effects of generational trauma and of mass incarceration on minority populations.
—
As for my thoughts about homeschooling, they are quite mixed. I have friends who have done a wonderful job of it, and relatives who are busy producing a second generation of conspiracy minded extremists and bigots. And I’m very aware of how much sexual predation and abuse gets hidden in evangelical communities through homeschooling. So while I am sympathetic to the urge to homeschool, I’d prefer a more robust system of oversight and standards for it in practice.
Hey, I live in California too, and suffer no such fantasy.
Things that might put a dent in education inequality…
Universal pre-k with a better focus on building towards literacy and numeracy and with free lunch for all children.
Adequate funding for infrastructure and materials in all public school districts.
An end to the standardized testing regime and its curricular contraction.
…but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children’s success will be attenuated.
Rich districts, by and large, outperform the scores of the top scoring countries in educational outcomes. Well off districts are up to the educational standards of the top scoring countries.
It’s not our pedagogical system that is broken, it’s our social support systems that fail our learners.
And that’s before calculating in the effects of generational trauma and of mass incarceration on minority populations.
—
As for my thoughts about homeschooling, they are quite mixed. I have friends who have done a wonderful job of it, and relatives who are busy producing a second generation of conspiracy minded extremists and bigots. And I’m very aware of how much sexual predation and abuse gets hidden in evangelical communities through homeschooling. So while I am sympathetic to the urge to homeschool, I’d prefer a more robust system of oversight and standards for it in practice.
did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ……… “deal with the elementary and secondary school” — snap of the finger and we’re set, right?
Actually, I did notice. But I’m thinking that there’s no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. An educated population is a benefit to a state, and lack of one a liability (c.f. Alabama and Mississippi, just for two, vs California and Massachusetts). It’s also a national benefit. So why not fund it from there?
We already have some gestures that way , for example Pell Grants. Or, if you want to go historical**, land grant universities. So go all in. Have all public education funded that way.
Not quite a snap of the fingers. But would correcting housing discrimination be quicker and easier? Cheaper? Definitely not in California; I realize Maine might be a different story.
** Because us conservatives just love history, ya know. 😉
did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ……… “deal with the elementary and secondary school” — snap of the finger and we’re set, right?
Actually, I did notice. But I’m thinking that there’s no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. An educated population is a benefit to a state, and lack of one a liability (c.f. Alabama and Mississippi, just for two, vs California and Massachusetts). It’s also a national benefit. So why not fund it from there?
We already have some gestures that way , for example Pell Grants. Or, if you want to go historical**, land grant universities. So go all in. Have all public education funded that way.
Not quite a snap of the fingers. But would correcting housing discrimination be quicker and easier? Cheaper? Definitely not in California; I realize Maine might be a different story.
** Because us conservatives just love history, ya know. 😉
remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.
That would be ancestors like my grandfather, who immigrated here in the early 1900s? A bit too late to get in on stealing land by force from anybody.
Check your assumptions at the door.
remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.
That would be ancestors like my grandfather, who immigrated here in the early 1900s? A bit too late to get in on stealing land by force from anybody.
Check your assumptions at the door.
but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children’s success will be attenuated.
No argument here regarding the impact of parents, especially their attitudes towards education. Better schools aren’t a complete solution. But I would argue that they are a way to substantially address the problem.
And I’ve yet to see evidence, or even persuasive arguments, that successfully redressing housing discrimination would be either easier or cheaper to accomplish. Perhaps bobbyp, as our “real leftist”™, can provide some.
but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children’s success will be attenuated.
No argument here regarding the impact of parents, especially their attitudes towards education. Better schools aren’t a complete solution. But I would argue that they are a way to substantially address the problem.
And I’ve yet to see evidence, or even persuasive arguments, that successfully redressing housing discrimination would be either easier or cheaper to accomplish. Perhaps bobbyp, as our “real leftist”™, can provide some.
Google “housing insecurity and educational outcomes” for a start. There are lots of studies from the Department of Education and from HUD, not to mention lots from the state level.
I’m sure that you will find lots of devils to advocate for there as well, but it should hopefully get us to where we are talking about actual studies and outcomes.
For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.
Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids, and oppose anything that focuses resources somewhere that might raise outcomes elsewhere and thus make their own child less competitive.
Google “housing insecurity and educational outcomes” for a start. There are lots of studies from the Department of Education and from HUD, not to mention lots from the state level.
I’m sure that you will find lots of devils to advocate for there as well, but it should hopefully get us to where we are talking about actual studies and outcomes.
For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.
Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids, and oppose anything that focuses resources somewhere that might raise outcomes elsewhere and thus make their own child less competitive.
For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.
I can’t agree . . . to the “gobsmacked” part. Disgusted, but not gobsmacked. After all, their kids don’t need free lunches. And empathy, let alone other virtues, are seriously endangered species there.
For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.
I can’t agree . . . to the “gobsmacked” part. Disgusted, but not gobsmacked. After all, their kids don’t need free lunches. And empathy, let alone other virtues, are seriously endangered species there.
Okay, I’m gobsmacked by the self-professed Christians that do so…
Okay, I’m gobsmacked by the self-professed Christians that do so…
Fair enough. Although ever since the “prosperity gospel” nonsense appeared on the scene, I’ve gotten seriously skeptical about self-professed “Christians” — too many show zero acquaintance with, never mind actual knowledge of, Jesus words.
Fair enough. Although ever since the “prosperity gospel” nonsense appeared on the scene, I’ve gotten seriously skeptical about self-professed “Christians” — too many show zero acquaintance with, never mind actual knowledge of, Jesus words.
Random quick reactions:
1. nous on homeschooling as a cover for abuse: agree about better oversight being needed, but it’s not like there isn’t abuse in schools as well.
2. wj: But I’m thinking that there’s no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. — Philosophically, sure. But honestly, I think you’ll pry their guns out of the hands of a lot of Americans before you’ll pry local control of education. And I bet there are even more — and far more — people who would fight you about education than about guns.
3. I also have ancestors who didn’t come to these shores until early in the 20th century. On the other hand, i have other ancestors who were here in the 1630s….
Random quick reactions:
1. nous on homeschooling as a cover for abuse: agree about better oversight being needed, but it’s not like there isn’t abuse in schools as well.
2. wj: But I’m thinking that there’s no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. — Philosophically, sure. But honestly, I think you’ll pry their guns out of the hands of a lot of Americans before you’ll pry local control of education. And I bet there are even more — and far more — people who would fight you about education than about guns.
3. I also have ancestors who didn’t come to these shores until early in the 20th century. On the other hand, i have other ancestors who were here in the 1630s….
Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
On current evidence, the Court would rule that the snowflake somehow didn’t have standing. Hey, it makes as much sense as some of their recent rulings.
Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
On current evidence, the Court would rule that the snowflake somehow didn’t have standing. Hey, it makes as much sense as some of their recent rulings.
Well, regarding HBCU, this story might be of interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHM7cHoWzyw
Well, regarding HBCU, this story might be of interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHM7cHoWzyw
lj, that’s a great story. Thank you.
lj, that’s a great story. Thank you.
Perhaps bobbyp, as our “real leftist”™, can provide some.
lol…that was tongue-in-cheek mirroring your apparently serious use of the term “real conservatives” (see abv.).
As for policy, well, this is not hard. Here’s an example:
https://www.habitat.org/stories/5-policy-solutions-advance-racial-equity-housing
Happy 4th.
Perhaps bobbyp, as our “real leftist”™, can provide some.
lol…that was tongue-in-cheek mirroring your apparently serious use of the term “real conservatives” (see abv.).
As for policy, well, this is not hard. Here’s an example:
https://www.habitat.org/stories/5-policy-solutions-advance-racial-equity-housing
Happy 4th.
Thanks for the link. I’d be interested in examples of where those (entirely reasonable IMHO) policies have been implemented successfully. And what results were seen, particularly (if there has been enough time) in educational outcomes.
I mean, we’ve got plenty of stories where a good school, or sometimes just a couple of good teachers, turned around the lives of kids in one of those poor, historically segregated, neighborhoods. So we know that can work, and fairly rapidly. If we’re willing to put the resources in to do it.
Thanks for the link. I’d be interested in examples of where those (entirely reasonable IMHO) policies have been implemented successfully. And what results were seen, particularly (if there has been enough time) in educational outcomes.
I mean, we’ve got plenty of stories where a good school, or sometimes just a couple of good teachers, turned around the lives of kids in one of those poor, historically segregated, neighborhoods. So we know that can work, and fairly rapidly. If we’re willing to put the resources in to do it.
A little something more on schools and education.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/03/democrats-schools-fix/
Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training. And notes how far we lag behind other developed countries on that front.
A little something more on schools and education.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/03/democrats-schools-fix/
Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training. And notes how far we lag behind other developed countries on that front.
Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training.
I don’t disagree, but I really hate that particular framing of things.
We have a serious shortage of teachers. The teachers that we have are under huge amounts of stress and are burning out. Both of these things were crises even before the pandemic.
Better training would be welcome, but it isn’t going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won’t reduce the threat of school violence. It won’t stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.
It won’t give them any power to implement that better training in their own classroom. Culture Warrior parents and politicians are going to override their professional judgment at every turn.
I try very hard not to shit on the dreams of my students who are education majors, but I think that most of them are going to be unhappy and frustrated and actively prevented from doing the things that they have been trained to do, and that there is no sign that any of this will improve in the near future.
When I went back to college to finish my undergraduate studies at the age of 34, I was thinking I would become a high school teacher. My professors encouraged me to consider grad school and academia. I ended up an adjunct professor, disempowered and devalued by my institution’s administrators. Yet I am still quite grateful that my professors nudged me away from secondary education and towards higher education. I’ll take my precarity over the load of crap that my K-12 colleagues have to suffer through.
Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training.
I don’t disagree, but I really hate that particular framing of things.
We have a serious shortage of teachers. The teachers that we have are under huge amounts of stress and are burning out. Both of these things were crises even before the pandemic.
Better training would be welcome, but it isn’t going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won’t reduce the threat of school violence. It won’t stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.
It won’t give them any power to implement that better training in their own classroom. Culture Warrior parents and politicians are going to override their professional judgment at every turn.
I try very hard not to shit on the dreams of my students who are education majors, but I think that most of them are going to be unhappy and frustrated and actively prevented from doing the things that they have been trained to do, and that there is no sign that any of this will improve in the near future.
When I went back to college to finish my undergraduate studies at the age of 34, I was thinking I would become a high school teacher. My professors encouraged me to consider grad school and academia. I ended up an adjunct professor, disempowered and devalued by my institution’s administrators. Yet I am still quite grateful that my professors nudged me away from secondary education and towards higher education. I’ll take my precarity over the load of crap that my K-12 colleagues have to suffer through.
Better training would be welcome, but it isn’t going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won’t reduce the threat of school violence. It won’t stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.
Absolutely agree that teachers’ wages need to be far higher. I’m less sure that getting better teachers wouldn’t have a positive impact of school violence.
And, of course, idiots with guns and no grip on reality require a whole different set of changes.
Better training would be welcome, but it isn’t going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won’t reduce the threat of school violence. It won’t stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.
Absolutely agree that teachers’ wages need to be far higher. I’m less sure that getting better teachers wouldn’t have a positive impact of school violence.
And, of course, idiots with guns and no grip on reality require a whole different set of changes.
Every beginning teacher wants to be one of those teachers that turns children’s lives around and improves the community.
The reality of how education actually functions in the US actively works against them being allowed to become that person.
Raising wages would be a welcome step, but it would not alter the structures that disempower teachers and lead them to early burnout.
Every beginning teacher wants to be one of those teachers that turns children’s lives around and improves the community.
The reality of how education actually functions in the US actively works against them being allowed to become that person.
Raising wages would be a welcome step, but it would not alter the structures that disempower teachers and lead them to early burnout.
Public school teaching used to be a good paying occupation with a bit of prestige thrown in. Now it’s just another shit job.
Way to go, America.
Public school teaching used to be a good paying occupation with a bit of prestige thrown in. Now it’s just another shit job.
Way to go, America.
With a number of states passing some version of school choice, it will be interesting how the next few years play out.
With a number of states passing some version of school choice, it will be interesting how the next few years play out.
The amount of money spent per student has about doubled in recent decades. But most of it didn’t go to teachers.
The amount of money spent per student has about doubled in recent decades. But most of it didn’t go to teachers.
How much of that went to sports related stuff?
How much of that went to sports related stuff?
Sports and a lot of administrative overhead.
Sports and a lot of administrative overhead.
No links, but my impression/vague memory is that the proliferation of student loans provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations. nous probably actually knows something about this….
Student loans: another topic….
No links, but my impression/vague memory is that the proliferation of student loans provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations. nous probably actually knows something about this….
Student loans: another topic….
” provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations”
Absolutely.
High demand, limited market: price goes up.
The institutions collecting the money are (nominally) nonprofits, so can’t just do “dividends” or “stock options”, and there’s an IRS limit on how much they can sock away into an endowment, so the go-to technique for soaking up the extra cash is to pay more admins.
In terms of efficiency, you could haul out any 2 out of 3 higher-ed admins and shoot them, and the overall efficiency would go UP. They’re a drag on the system.
” provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations”
Absolutely.
High demand, limited market: price goes up.
The institutions collecting the money are (nominally) nonprofits, so can’t just do “dividends” or “stock options”, and there’s an IRS limit on how much they can sock away into an endowment, so the go-to technique for soaking up the extra cash is to pay more admins.
In terms of efficiency, you could haul out any 2 out of 3 higher-ed admins and shoot them, and the overall efficiency would go UP. They’re a drag on the system.
Thank you, Snarki. I mean, surely the money couldn’t possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc….
My take on the student loan boondoggle is that the lenders made a profit, the admins thrived and multiplied, students turned into debt slaves whether they got a degree (much less an education) or not, and we paid for it. (Taxpayers; they are federally guarantted loans, right? Not that it’s easy to get out of paying them, or so I’ve heard.)
Thank you, Snarki. I mean, surely the money couldn’t possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc….
My take on the student loan boondoggle is that the lenders made a profit, the admins thrived and multiplied, students turned into debt slaves whether they got a degree (much less an education) or not, and we paid for it. (Taxpayers; they are federally guarantted loans, right? Not that it’s easy to get out of paying them, or so I’ve heard.)
I mean, surely the money couldn’t possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc….
Or, radical thought, on reducing tuition and/or increased scholarships. But for that you’d have to think the students were the whole point of the operation.
I mean, surely the money couldn’t possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc….
Or, radical thought, on reducing tuition and/or increased scholarships. But for that you’d have to think the students were the whole point of the operation.
Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.
Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.
wj — that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible. I was thinking about that when you mentioned the land grant universities the other day. Things are seriously out of whack, to the extent that it’s almost not worth talking about stuff like education reform until we do something about the wealth gap.
But of course we should talk about education, because it would be nice to have some notion of what we might do if we ever have the means.
“We” left undefined…..
wj — that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible. I was thinking about that when you mentioned the land grant universities the other day. Things are seriously out of whack, to the extent that it’s almost not worth talking about stuff like education reform until we do something about the wealth gap.
But of course we should talk about education, because it would be nice to have some notion of what we might do if we ever have the means.
“We” left undefined…..
that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible.
Being our “real conservative” normally, I opt to go full reactionary here. It ought to be made possible once again!
One of those rare times when the mid-20th century really was better.
that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible.
Being our “real conservative” normally, I opt to go full reactionary here. It ought to be made possible once again!
One of those rare times when the mid-20th century really was better.
Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.
I agree with almost all of your formulation, except I would say that we need to expand the field of focus. Affordability is not just a matter of tuition being higher, it’s also a matter of housing costs being much higher and student wages not keeping up with the cost of living. Tuition would not be *as much of* a problem if the sort of employment open to college students paid enough to keep them out of poverty and allow them to save. It does not.
And, yes, administrative positions have ballooned by 36% since the 90s while full time faculty positions have shrunk, replaced by part-time adjuncts. And faculty compensation has been stagnant over that time, so faculty costs have actually gone down.
Beware when looking for analyses of these trends. Most of the actual studies are behind paywalls or are in need of translation, and most of the public-facing commentary is subject to distortion at the hands of competing agendas (tenured faculty seeking to preserve their system, conservative jeremiad writers, techbros with an app to “fix” academia, etc.). All of the studies I’ve seen over the years are out of reach and probably a bit out of date. Sorry for that.
If you want college to be more affordable, you have to get things back into something like the middle class affordability of the post-war period in the US. Wages up, housing costs down, inequality down.
Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.
I agree with almost all of your formulation, except I would say that we need to expand the field of focus. Affordability is not just a matter of tuition being higher, it’s also a matter of housing costs being much higher and student wages not keeping up with the cost of living. Tuition would not be *as much of* a problem if the sort of employment open to college students paid enough to keep them out of poverty and allow them to save. It does not.
And, yes, administrative positions have ballooned by 36% since the 90s while full time faculty positions have shrunk, replaced by part-time adjuncts. And faculty compensation has been stagnant over that time, so faculty costs have actually gone down.
Beware when looking for analyses of these trends. Most of the actual studies are behind paywalls or are in need of translation, and most of the public-facing commentary is subject to distortion at the hands of competing agendas (tenured faculty seeking to preserve their system, conservative jeremiad writers, techbros with an app to “fix” academia, etc.). All of the studies I’ve seen over the years are out of reach and probably a bit out of date. Sorry for that.
If you want college to be more affordable, you have to get things back into something like the middle class affordability of the post-war period in the US. Wages up, housing costs down, inequality down.
nous’s comment prompts me to offer some bare numbers that are a vast oversimplication, but that i think are damningly indicative of what he’s talking about.
When i left home for college at MIT in 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour and the annual budget for an undergraduate was about $3,000. (Tuition, room and board, books, a bit of $ budgeted for travel.) You would have had to work 1875 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs — so, roughly full-time for a year, and not wj’s 20-25 hours a week, but that’s beside the point I am about to make.
This year the estimated annual undergraduate budget at MIT is $82,730, and the federal minimum wage is $7.25. You would have to work 11,411 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs — six times as much as in 1968.
And I could dig out my after-tax income graph, but not tonight. The rich get richer…..
I tried to find out these numbers for a representative state university, which was Kent State, where a number of my friends went to school. I can’t find the old numbers, alas. But my imperssion is that the affordability equation is very much worse for state schools now than it was then.
nous’s comment prompts me to offer some bare numbers that are a vast oversimplication, but that i think are damningly indicative of what he’s talking about.
When i left home for college at MIT in 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour and the annual budget for an undergraduate was about $3,000. (Tuition, room and board, books, a bit of $ budgeted for travel.) You would have had to work 1875 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs — so, roughly full-time for a year, and not wj’s 20-25 hours a week, but that’s beside the point I am about to make.
This year the estimated annual undergraduate budget at MIT is $82,730, and the federal minimum wage is $7.25. You would have to work 11,411 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs — six times as much as in 1968.
And I could dig out my after-tax income graph, but not tonight. The rich get richer…..
I tried to find out these numbers for a representative state university, which was Kent State, where a number of my friends went to school. I can’t find the old numbers, alas. But my imperssion is that the affordability equation is very much worse for state schools now than it was then.
KSU budget for an undergrad now: $25,140 — so 3468 hours to earn a year at the current minimum wage, or not quite twice as many hours as it took to earn a year’s budget for MIT in 1968.
My rough memory is that in-state kids paid very minimal tuition in 1968, and as nous says, housing was much more affordable then.
KSU budget for an undergrad now: $25,140 — so 3468 hours to earn a year at the current minimum wage, or not quite twice as many hours as it took to earn a year’s budget for MIT in 1968.
My rough memory is that in-state kids paid very minimal tuition in 1968, and as nous says, housing was much more affordable then.
Just for comparison.
When I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley (1965 – 1970) the “tuition and fees”, for in-state students, was $98 per quarter. I worked under 30 hours per week, a combination of clerical work (work-study, on campus, so no commute costs) and washing dishes. Washing dishes wasn’t minimum wage, because we got paid a bit more than the kids on the serving line. Not high paid work, but not quite the minimum.
That covered tuition, room and board at the dorm, books, and all my other expenses.** I wasn’t living extravagantly, but I didn’t have to worry if I occasionally wanted theater tickets or dinner out, or something like that.
** As a side note, for a couple years in there, I was also paying my mother’s tuition, not at a state college, while she got her teaching credential. A bit of a reversal on the usual scenario, I believe. I don’t recall that breaking the bank either.
Just for comparison.
When I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley (1965 – 1970) the “tuition and fees”, for in-state students, was $98 per quarter. I worked under 30 hours per week, a combination of clerical work (work-study, on campus, so no commute costs) and washing dishes. Washing dishes wasn’t minimum wage, because we got paid a bit more than the kids on the serving line. Not high paid work, but not quite the minimum.
That covered tuition, room and board at the dorm, books, and all my other expenses.** I wasn’t living extravagantly, but I didn’t have to worry if I occasionally wanted theater tickets or dinner out, or something like that.
** As a side note, for a couple years in there, I was also paying my mother’s tuition, not at a state college, while she got her teaching credential. A bit of a reversal on the usual scenario, I believe. I don’t recall that breaking the bank either.
I enrolled in a junior college in 1965. In ’66 or ’67 they gave me a part-time computer operator job for an embarrassing $3.00 an hour. That’s about $28 in today’s money. Embarrassing because that’s what they were paying the secretaries in the business office. I thought their jobs were a lot harder and required more skills than the computer operator job.
I enrolled in a junior college in 1965. In ’66 or ’67 they gave me a part-time computer operator job for an embarrassing $3.00 an hour. That’s about $28 in today’s money. Embarrassing because that’s what they were paying the secretaries in the business office. I thought their jobs were a lot harder and required more skills than the computer operator job.
We have mentioned various angles on the problem of college affordability. Here’s what I wrote, my lord it was 11 years ago, in a Crooked Timber thread on homeschooling (which I’ve linked here before). It’s me at my most starry-eyed, but really, most of what we’re talking about here doesn’t have the remotest chance of happening without much wider cultural changes, so why not dream the widest possible dream?
Why should it be as complicated as it is? If people want to study, facilitate it! But no, we have to have this complicated mess of a system, for reasons of tradition and inertia, but also, I suspect underneath, for the same reason the cost of administering our ridiculous health care / health insurance system are much more than administrative costs in other wealthy countries.
For instance:
[my bold]
A quick outing with friend Google yields even higher estimates for per capita administrative costs, but that’s much too big a sidetrack for right now, or this thread.
We have mentioned various angles on the problem of college affordability. Here’s what I wrote, my lord it was 11 years ago, in a Crooked Timber thread on homeschooling (which I’ve linked here before). It’s me at my most starry-eyed, but really, most of what we’re talking about here doesn’t have the remotest chance of happening without much wider cultural changes, so why not dream the widest possible dream?
Why should it be as complicated as it is? If people want to study, facilitate it! But no, we have to have this complicated mess of a system, for reasons of tradition and inertia, but also, I suspect underneath, for the same reason the cost of administering our ridiculous health care / health insurance system are much more than administrative costs in other wealthy countries.
For instance:
[my bold]
A quick outing with friend Google yields even higher estimates for per capita administrative costs, but that’s much too big a sidetrack for right now, or this thread.
Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids
Having to navigate the London school system for my kid, I wholeheartedly agree: the amount of money sloshing around, the incredibe pushiness of some parents, the amount status anxiety, pretentiousness and keeping up with the Joneses involved – it’s like the seventh circle of hell …
PS
I thought “snowflake” was a nasty, rightwing term – is it now deemed acceptable in polite society or am I missing something?
Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids
Having to navigate the London school system for my kid, I wholeheartedly agree: the amount of money sloshing around, the incredibe pushiness of some parents, the amount status anxiety, pretentiousness and keeping up with the Joneses involved – it’s like the seventh circle of hell …
PS
I thought “snowflake” was a nasty, rightwing term – is it now deemed acceptable in polite society or am I missing something?
I’m taking it as a ironic comment, snowflake is usually deployed from Right to the left. Am I right to think that it isn’t used in the UK as much?
As another question, what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?
I’m taking it as a ironic comment, snowflake is usually deployed from Right to the left. Am I right to think that it isn’t used in the UK as much?
As another question, what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?
Polite society? Seriously?
I have seen “snowflake” used in all directions. From the Wikipedia entry on the word:
Seems right on the button for my hypothetical unsuccessful white applicant to an HBCU who thinks they should have gotten in based on their undeniable “merit.” (Somehow I picture that person as the cousin of the woman who brought the wedding website case.)
More from the Wikipedia entry:
If doing what The Guardian does is an offense against polite society these days, then proper standards for offensiveness are dead. 😉
Polite society? Seriously?
I have seen “snowflake” used in all directions. From the Wikipedia entry on the word:
Seems right on the button for my hypothetical unsuccessful white applicant to an HBCU who thinks they should have gotten in based on their undeniable “merit.” (Somehow I picture that person as the cousin of the woman who brought the wedding website case.)
More from the Wikipedia entry:
If doing what The Guardian does is an offense against polite society these days, then proper standards for offensiveness are dead. 😉
‘Polite society’ was used ironically, yes.
‘Snowflake’ apparently not.
So the term has made a journey from the rightwing to the center/left. I grant you that some on the center-left use it to turn the tables on the right, but the term’s origins in Brexit and Trump, as well as its nasty meaning (don’t be sensitive) still aligns it very much with the right, so I’m not sure if it’s wise for those not on the right to adopt it.
‘Polite society’ was used ironically, yes.
‘Snowflake’ apparently not.
So the term has made a journey from the rightwing to the center/left. I grant you that some on the center-left use it to turn the tables on the right, but the term’s origins in Brexit and Trump, as well as its nasty meaning (don’t be sensitive) still aligns it very much with the right, so I’m not sure if it’s wise for those not on the right to adopt it.
Heres a bit more from Wikipedia to bolster my case, I especially don’t like how the term is insulting young and/or sensitive people:
The terms “generation snowflake” and “snowflake generation” are frequently used in reference to use of trigger warnings and safe spaces, or to describe young adults as anti-free speech, specifically in reference to a practice referred to as deplatforming.[15][16][17] It has also been used to refer to a reported increase in mental health issues among young adults.[18]
A 2017 article from Think Progress commented: “The insult expanded to encompass not just the young, but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of ‘safe spaces, too fragile'”.
Shelly Haslam-Ormerod, senior lecturer in mental health and wellbeing at Edge Hill University, strongly criticised the use of the term, arguing in The Conversation that it stigmatises the mental health challenges faced by today’s young people in an uncertain world and noting that even children aged under 10 have been unfairly labelled “snowflakes” in tabloid articles.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
Heres a bit more from Wikipedia to bolster my case, I especially don’t like how the term is insulting young and/or sensitive people:
The terms “generation snowflake” and “snowflake generation” are frequently used in reference to use of trigger warnings and safe spaces, or to describe young adults as anti-free speech, specifically in reference to a practice referred to as deplatforming.[15][16][17] It has also been used to refer to a reported increase in mental health issues among young adults.[18]
A 2017 article from Think Progress commented: “The insult expanded to encompass not just the young, but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of ‘safe spaces, too fragile'”.
Shelly Haslam-Ormerod, senior lecturer in mental health and wellbeing at Edge Hill University, strongly criticised the use of the term, arguing in The Conversation that it stigmatises the mental health challenges faced by today’s young people in an uncertain world and noting that even children aged under 10 have been unfairly labelled “snowflakes” in tabloid articles.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
It’s a word with a meaning that fit the point I was trying to make, so I used it. It wasn’t used to describe a specific or even real person; it was used to label a person I made up practically to fit the definition of “snowflake.” (See context.)
It wasn’t “ironic” and I don’t consider it “nasty.” I’ll cop to snarky, and if snark is the worst we come to in responding to present circumstances, that’s virtue enough for me.
If you don’t think it’s wise to adopt it, don’t adopt it.
It’s a word with a meaning that fit the point I was trying to make, so I used it. It wasn’t used to describe a specific or even real person; it was used to label a person I made up practically to fit the definition of “snowflake.” (See context.)
It wasn’t “ironic” and I don’t consider it “nasty.” I’ll cop to snarky, and if snark is the worst we come to in responding to present circumstances, that’s virtue enough for me.
If you don’t think it’s wise to adopt it, don’t adopt it.
what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?
Apparently, rather than the big conspiracy he and the tabloids tried to publicise, his balance just fell below the required minimum, lol.
You need 3 million in savings or 1 million in investments with the bank for a Coutts account (and it’s not worth it in the first place).
what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?
Apparently, rather than the big conspiracy he and the tabloids tried to publicise, his balance just fell below the required minimum, lol.
You need 3 million in savings or 1 million in investments with the bank for a Coutts account (and it’s not worth it in the first place).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
Interesting point. I’m wondering how the phrase would have been put if ‘snowflake’ wasn’t used.
I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white ______ who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
It might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can’t think of a word (applicant? applying student?) that fits there and _wouldn’t_ give undeserved ‘standing’ to the person. It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury. Which echoes my question of what standing means anymore if I can conjure up some anonymous applicants who feel injured enough to demand justice, but don’t want anyone to know that it was them who complained or if a forged email post (from a guy who is married and works as a web designer) is unable to sink a case.
Interesting point. I’m wondering how the phrase would have been put if ‘snowflake’ wasn’t used.
I suppose HBCUs aren’t getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white ______ who didn’t get in sued one of them…?
It might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can’t think of a word (applicant? applying student?) that fits there and _wouldn’t_ give undeserved ‘standing’ to the person. It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury. Which echoes my question of what standing means anymore if I can conjure up some anonymous applicants who feel injured enough to demand justice, but don’t want anyone to know that it was them who complained or if a forged email post (from a guy who is married and works as a web designer) is unable to sink a case.
lj — i am totally with you on the question of standing. It is just mind-boggling.
Here’s something related, which maybe has already been linked here — i’m not keeping up very well with where I’ve seen different bits of info:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/03/metro/harvard-legacy-admissions-supreme-court/
So there are people who are not just letting this stand unchallenged, one way or another.
lj — i am totally with you on the question of standing. It is just mind-boggling.
Here’s something related, which maybe has already been linked here — i’m not keeping up very well with where I’ve seen different bits of info:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/03/metro/harvard-legacy-admissions-supreme-court/
So there are people who are not just letting this stand unchallenged, one way or another.
ObWi 10-15 years ago was no place for the easily triggered. Not now. The nasty meaning of snowflake, yes very troubling. Unlike fascist, racist, blah, blah, blah and blah almost without end, snowflake is a really, really bad thing to call someone. Here is a factually recounted story of “non-snowflakes” being tolerant. Be sure to watch the video of the pro-choice, non-snowflake guy kicking the pro-life women. It’s super-inclusive! Happy 4th of July!
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/how-pro-life-students-fought-violence-harassment-with-compassion/
ObWi 10-15 years ago was no place for the easily triggered. Not now. The nasty meaning of snowflake, yes very troubling. Unlike fascist, racist, blah, blah, blah and blah almost without end, snowflake is a really, really bad thing to call someone. Here is a factually recounted story of “non-snowflakes” being tolerant. Be sure to watch the video of the pro-choice, non-snowflake guy kicking the pro-life women. It’s super-inclusive! Happy 4th of July!
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/how-pro-life-students-fought-violence-harassment-with-compassion/
I always took “snowflake” to have come into usage via Fight Club:
“You are not special. You’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We’re all part of the same compost heap. We’re all singing, all dancing crap of the world.”
From there it was widely adopted by the usual reddit and 4chan types to be weaponized against any pkea for compassion or fairness.
I always took “snowflake” to have come into usage via Fight Club:
“You are not special. You’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We’re all part of the same compost heap. We’re all singing, all dancing crap of the world.”
From there it was widely adopted by the usual reddit and 4chan types to be weaponized against any pkea for compassion or fairness.
Personally, I don’t mind “snowflake” to describe someone who needs special “protection” from distressing events that once might have been considered just part of the rough and tumble of normal life. I’m thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie’s example, or requiring a trigger warning before reading a book which has e.g. racism in it (I am frequently brought up short by the naked antisemitism in certain Victorian literature, for example, but do not suffer adverse consequences as a result and on the contrary regard it as educational), or having to be protected from hearing unfashionable or currently unacceptable opinions. Child mental health practitioners now emphasise that resilience is one of the most important qualities a child can have, or have had encouraged, and you cannot develop it if you are diligently protected from all adverse experiences.
The word was originally used by the right against the left, but applies equally now to people who, for example, think that teaching Critical Race Theory is an example of racism against white people. It is now often used in the UK, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, (and to avoid any impression that I am a “fuck your feelings” kind of person) I do absolutely believe in obloquy and in some circumstances legal jeopardy attaching to e.g. racist or sexist speech and behaviour, but I also believe that the general principle of protecting other people’s feelings at all costs is a slippery slope to something much worse or more dangerous than many well meaning people realise.
Personally, I don’t mind “snowflake” to describe someone who needs special “protection” from distressing events that once might have been considered just part of the rough and tumble of normal life. I’m thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie’s example, or requiring a trigger warning before reading a book which has e.g. racism in it (I am frequently brought up short by the naked antisemitism in certain Victorian literature, for example, but do not suffer adverse consequences as a result and on the contrary regard it as educational), or having to be protected from hearing unfashionable or currently unacceptable opinions. Child mental health practitioners now emphasise that resilience is one of the most important qualities a child can have, or have had encouraged, and you cannot develop it if you are diligently protected from all adverse experiences.
The word was originally used by the right against the left, but applies equally now to people who, for example, think that teaching Critical Race Theory is an example of racism against white people. It is now often used in the UK, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, (and to avoid any impression that I am a “fuck your feelings” kind of person) I do absolutely believe in obloquy and in some circumstances legal jeopardy attaching to e.g. racist or sexist speech and behaviour, but I also believe that the general principle of protecting other people’s feelings at all costs is a slippery slope to something much worse or more dangerous than many well meaning people realise.
Oh God, I posted without reading the few preceding comments. As occasionally happens, it is galling to find oneself temporarily in bed with the holders of certain kinds of opinions, particularly when they are expressed in such snarky ways. And believe me, this can sometimes apply to left/liberal as well as rightwing opinions….
Oh God, I posted without reading the few preceding comments. As occasionally happens, it is galling to find oneself temporarily in bed with the holders of certain kinds of opinions, particularly when they are expressed in such snarky ways. And believe me, this can sometimes apply to left/liberal as well as rightwing opinions….
I’m thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie’s example
I don’t know if we’re talking past each other, but my “snowflake” epithet referred not to distress over an unsuccessful application per se, but to a hypothetical white applicant asserting that they were unsuccessful because of bias against white people. And — the underlying assumption that such a person would be operating on the theory that they couldn’t possibly have been turned down on the “merits.”
It’s the flip side of white applicants who think that “their” place was given away to an undeserving non-white applicant because of affirmative action.
I’m thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie’s example
I don’t know if we’re talking past each other, but my “snowflake” epithet referred not to distress over an unsuccessful application per se, but to a hypothetical white applicant asserting that they were unsuccessful because of bias against white people. And — the underlying assumption that such a person would be operating on the theory that they couldn’t possibly have been turned down on the “merits.”
It’s the flip side of white applicants who think that “their” place was given away to an undeserving non-white applicant because of affirmative action.
Or not the flip side, really, but the same side….
Or not the flip side, really, but the same side….
No, Janie, I understood that, but probably didn’t express myself well. Your hypothetical white applicant might indeed not suffer actual distress, and might think the only possible explanation was bias against them, but it would be as a result of an adverse decision (such as all of us have to suffer at some time or other). And of course, that is not even considering the possibility that such a hypothetical white applicant might have from the beginning had the strategy and intention of claiming bias if the decision went against them. Which is the kind of bad faith which is currently all too believable…
No, Janie, I understood that, but probably didn’t express myself well. Your hypothetical white applicant might indeed not suffer actual distress, and might think the only possible explanation was bias against them, but it would be as a result of an adverse decision (such as all of us have to suffer at some time or other). And of course, that is not even considering the possibility that such a hypothetical white applicant might have from the beginning had the strategy and intention of claiming bias if the decision went against them. Which is the kind of bad faith which is currently all too believable…
It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury.
Janie, lj, I’m not at all sure why anyone would bother to do that. Well, unless they were looking to cash in, of course.
But as a way to attack affirmative action or whatever replaces it? Why bother? As we saw in the wedding website case, there’s absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth. Since you apparently don’t need an injury to have standing, why both with anything else?
I mean, the guy who supposedly asked for the gay wedding website a) isn’t gay, b) is already happily married and he and his wife have a couple of kids (and another on the way), and c) never had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiff. Not that the Court cared about such details. The whole thing was totally imaginary. In short, totally Trumpian.
It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury.
Janie, lj, I’m not at all sure why anyone would bother to do that. Well, unless they were looking to cash in, of course.
But as a way to attack affirmative action or whatever replaces it? Why bother? As we saw in the wedding website case, there’s absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth. Since you apparently don’t need an injury to have standing, why both with anything else?
I mean, the guy who supposedly asked for the gay wedding website a) isn’t gay, b) is already happily married and he and his wife have a couple of kids (and another on the way), and c) never had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiff. Not that the Court cared about such details. The whole thing was totally imaginary. In short, totally Trumpian.
I personally reserve my use of “snowflake” for when dealing with edgelords and the Fuck Your Feelings right when they are complaining bitterly about things like Pride celebrations.
In the same spirit, I love pointing out to the Fight Club MRA types that the book is clearly about the schizoid nature of being a young, closeted male homosexual.
They use these things as weapons because they fear these things inside themselves. I have no problem letting that implication hang there between us, so long as I am not stigmatizing compassion or being ableist.
It’s a good opportunity to flip the grounds and praise the inner fortitude of pluralism.
I personally reserve my use of “snowflake” for when dealing with edgelords and the Fuck Your Feelings right when they are complaining bitterly about things like Pride celebrations.
In the same spirit, I love pointing out to the Fight Club MRA types that the book is clearly about the schizoid nature of being a young, closeted male homosexual.
They use these things as weapons because they fear these things inside themselves. I have no problem letting that implication hang there between us, so long as I am not stigmatizing compassion or being ableist.
It’s a good opportunity to flip the grounds and praise the inner fortitude of pluralism.
On the issue of terminology, I love “edgelords” (I have had to look it up once again). What a useful, and euphonious, word!
On the issue of terminology, I love “edgelords” (I have had to look it up once again). What a useful, and euphonious, word!
It never occurred to me that “snowflake” might have anything to do with uniqueness. Everywhere I recall encountering it, it was about extreme fragility. In particular, about the target being somehow traumatized (or, at least, claiming to be traumatized) by a trivial comment or event.
It never occurred to me that “snowflake” might have anything to do with uniqueness. Everywhere I recall encountering it, it was about extreme fragility. In particular, about the target being somehow traumatized (or, at least, claiming to be traumatized) by a trivial comment or event.
wj – that’s how the epithet evolved, for obvious contextual reasons, but it started in the edgelord fora as a “you’re not special” framing.
Ironic, since their grievances are entirely grounded in the idea that they are the forgotten heroes of civilization, now shat upon for the crime of being young and male.
wj – that’s how the epithet evolved, for obvious contextual reasons, but it started in the edgelord fora as a “you’re not special” framing.
Ironic, since their grievances are entirely grounded in the idea that they are the forgotten heroes of civilization, now shat upon for the crime of being young and male.
And the second part of that – the you are compost part – is the sentiment that is fueling the nihilism of the young male mass shooter. There’s a deep nihilism in it.
If you want to understand the anti-SJW alt-right, you need to understand how and why they embraced Fight Club and The Matrix as their foundational myths. The alt-right is a sick combination of Red Pills and Project Mayhem.
And the second part of that – the you are compost part – is the sentiment that is fueling the nihilism of the young male mass shooter. There’s a deep nihilism in it.
If you want to understand the anti-SJW alt-right, you need to understand how and why they embraced Fight Club and The Matrix as their foundational myths. The alt-right is a sick combination of Red Pills and Project Mayhem.
As we saw in the wedding website case, there’s absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth.
Sometimes both sides of a dispute will agree to pursue a test case. I don’t if that’s the case in this case but it’s hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.
As we saw in the wedding website case, there’s absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth.
Sometimes both sides of a dispute will agree to pursue a test case. I don’t if that’s the case in this case but it’s hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.
Perhaps McKinney could weigh in: what’s the difference, if any, between a test case and a hypothetical? Are courts, at any level, supposed to decide a hypothetical case? Does it matter whether the opposing lawyers agree to pretend it’s not hypothetical?
–TP
Perhaps McKinney could weigh in: what’s the difference, if any, between a test case and a hypothetical? Are courts, at any level, supposed to decide a hypothetical case? Does it matter whether the opposing lawyers agree to pretend it’s not hypothetical?
–TP
it’s hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.
Oh, there was a real plaintiff: a prospective web designer. She hadn’t suffered any actual harm, not having designed any websites. But she claimed she planned to, except for her concern about the nondiscrimination law.** The Court decided she had standing anyway.
The purported gay client only surfaced in an Appendix to the original filing; he was previously anonymous. It provided contact information about him, that is, for a real person. But apparent nobody from the state thought to actually contact him. After all, there was really a person by that name at that address….
** Any bets on whether she actually does so now? Or merely milks her celebrity on the MAGA circuit.
it’s hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.
Oh, there was a real plaintiff: a prospective web designer. She hadn’t suffered any actual harm, not having designed any websites. But she claimed she planned to, except for her concern about the nondiscrimination law.** The Court decided she had standing anyway.
The purported gay client only surfaced in an Appendix to the original filing; he was previously anonymous. It provided contact information about him, that is, for a real person. But apparent nobody from the state thought to actually contact him. After all, there was really a person by that name at that address….
** Any bets on whether she actually does so now? Or merely milks her celebrity on the MAGA circuit.
Courts will occasionally grant standing in cases where the plaintiff can make the argument that the harm they will suffer is from the state prosecuting them for violating a law because the state has done so in similar situations in the past. In this one, there was no question that refusing to design a web site for a same-sex wedding was a violation of the Colorado law, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.
In one of the other threads I believe someone argued that a firm in the business of providing speech can always turn down a customer because the government can never coerce speech. There are likely to be additional cases in the future while the courts work out exactly what constitutes protected speech. From memory, so suspect, but they’ve established cake decorations and web sites. I’ve raised the question before but… if I’m in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
Courts will occasionally grant standing in cases where the plaintiff can make the argument that the harm they will suffer is from the state prosecuting them for violating a law because the state has done so in similar situations in the past. In this one, there was no question that refusing to design a web site for a same-sex wedding was a violation of the Colorado law, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.
In one of the other threads I believe someone argued that a firm in the business of providing speech can always turn down a customer because the government can never coerce speech. There are likely to be additional cases in the future while the courts work out exactly what constitutes protected speech. From memory, so suspect, but they’ve established cake decorations and web sites. I’ve raised the question before but… if I’m in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
You mean like you find the government of the country where it is made offensive? Or the state (e.g. Texas) where it’s made? Or the executives of the company which makes it?
can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
You mean like you find the government of the country where it is made offensive? Or the state (e.g. Texas) where it’s made? Or the executives of the company which makes it?
I “cutting and styling hair” an expressive/creative expression?
Is putting food on a plate to serve to someone an expressive/creative expression?
…and down the Jim Crow rabbit hole we go.
I “cutting and styling hair” an expressive/creative expression?
Is putting food on a plate to serve to someone an expressive/creative expression?
…and down the Jim Crow rabbit hole we go.
, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.
I seem to remember when Colorado had some libertarian tendencies.
, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.
I seem to remember when Colorado had some libertarian tendencies.
If I am a website designer, and a baker comes to me and asks me to make a website for her business that includes the information that she will not bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can I, on the basis of my non-religiously based conscience, refuse on the basis that I think she’s a flaming bigot and I can’t be compelled to reproduce her bigoted speech for her?
From lj’s original SCOTUSblog link, it seems like I might have a chance on speech grounds, but I can’t imagine I’d have a chance — especially with this SCOTUS — on freedom of conscience grounds. We have freedom *of* religion in this country, but as far as I can tell, freedom *from* religion is nowhere in sight. If it were, religiously based bigots wouldn’t be able to turn gay people or women into second-class citizens in the name of their religious beliefs (or women as second-class citizens either; don’t get me started).
If I am a website designer, and a baker comes to me and asks me to make a website for her business that includes the information that she will not bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can I, on the basis of my non-religiously based conscience, refuse on the basis that I think she’s a flaming bigot and I can’t be compelled to reproduce her bigoted speech for her?
From lj’s original SCOTUSblog link, it seems like I might have a chance on speech grounds, but I can’t imagine I’d have a chance — especially with this SCOTUS — on freedom of conscience grounds. We have freedom *of* religion in this country, but as far as I can tell, freedom *from* religion is nowhere in sight. If it were, religiously based bigots wouldn’t be able to turn gay people or women into second-class citizens in the name of their religious beliefs (or women as second-class citizens either; don’t get me started).
(Wrong thread, sorry.)
(Wrong thread, sorry.)
if I’m in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
IANAL, so this is all just musing.
I don’t see where you’d get to the kind of conflict there is in the website and wedding cake cases, where one set of rights (the right of gay people to be free of discrimination and to participate in public life on the same basis as straight people) is (allegedly) clashing with another set of tights (free speech, religion, whatever).
Suppose someone asked you to write some code to help them make a bomb — surely you don’t have an obligation to help people make tools for committing crimes. Suppose someone asked you to make a device that was legal but that made air pollution worse in your area, and you disapproved of that. I don’t think people have a legal right to make polluting devices, even if their devices don’t violate any laws, so there’s no conflict of rights there either. ????? (I may not be thinking this through correctly, or totally understanding what you have in mind.)
Suppose the website woman wanted to put on her own website that she would refuse to use the color blue in her designs for her customers. There’s no legal right to have your wedding website in blue, so there’s no conflict of rights there.
if I’m in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?
IANAL, so this is all just musing.
I don’t see where you’d get to the kind of conflict there is in the website and wedding cake cases, where one set of rights (the right of gay people to be free of discrimination and to participate in public life on the same basis as straight people) is (allegedly) clashing with another set of tights (free speech, religion, whatever).
Suppose someone asked you to write some code to help them make a bomb — surely you don’t have an obligation to help people make tools for committing crimes. Suppose someone asked you to make a device that was legal but that made air pollution worse in your area, and you disapproved of that. I don’t think people have a legal right to make polluting devices, even if their devices don’t violate any laws, so there’s no conflict of rights there either. ????? (I may not be thinking this through correctly, or totally understanding what you have in mind.)
Suppose the website woman wanted to put on her own website that she would refuse to use the color blue in her designs for her customers. There’s no legal right to have your wedding website in blue, so there’s no conflict of rights there.
Maybe closer to what you’re wondering — suppose a website designer would only make websites for bakeries and and restaurants. Would car repair shops have a right to demand that she make websites for them as well? Surely not….
Maybe closer to what you’re wondering — suppose a website designer would only make websites for bakeries and and restaurants. Would car repair shops have a right to demand that she make websites for them as well? Surely not….
On the other hand, if you refused to help make devices for black people…….
Which brings me to another hypothetical. I believe the website woman said she’d be glad to make websites for gay people, just not for their weddings, because she had religious objections to that.
So, what if she had religious objections to interracial marriages?
Letting people treat other people as second-class citizens because THEY violate YOUR religious beliefs is just … wrong. I don’t care what the Constitution says, it’s a can of worms that will either pit everyone against everyone (what if I don’t believe people should eat meat on Friday… or eat meat at all…. can i refuse to design a website for a restaurant… etc.) — or result in what the real purpose is in the first place, which is to have self-styled “Christians” be the boss of everyone.
On the other hand, if you refused to help make devices for black people…….
Which brings me to another hypothetical. I believe the website woman said she’d be glad to make websites for gay people, just not for their weddings, because she had religious objections to that.
So, what if she had religious objections to interracial marriages?
Letting people treat other people as second-class citizens because THEY violate YOUR religious beliefs is just … wrong. I don’t care what the Constitution says, it’s a can of worms that will either pit everyone against everyone (what if I don’t believe people should eat meat on Friday… or eat meat at all…. can i refuse to design a website for a restaurant… etc.) — or result in what the real purpose is in the first place, which is to have self-styled “Christians” be the boss of everyone.
Car repair shops are not a protected class as defined by statute, much as they would like to be. The jury is still out on snowflakes. : )
Car repair shops are not a protected class as defined by statute, much as they would like to be. The jury is still out on snowflakes. : )
Bobbyp — that’s the bottom line answer to Michael’s question, right?
Interesting that political parties aren’t a protected class. I could open a cafe and refuse to serve Clickbait voters, right? That would be fun, until it wasn’t.
Bobbyp — that’s the bottom line answer to Michael’s question, right?
Interesting that political parties aren’t a protected class. I could open a cafe and refuse to serve Clickbait voters, right? That would be fun, until it wasn’t.
Hadn’t we a basic agreemenet that there is a difference between bespoke and generic services? A lot of hypothetical cases would thus disappear.
Of course not those of ‘MY constitutional G*d-given right to discriminate against YOU ranks above your fictitious ‘right’ to non-discrimination’. Those will still be welcomed by some courts.
Btw, couldn’t courts, judges and justices refuse cases on the same grounds? [not to be confused with individual recusal but ‘I don’t take cases that would force me to rule in favor of people I do not approve of on religious grounds.]
Hadn’t we a basic agreemenet that there is a difference between bespoke and generic services? A lot of hypothetical cases would thus disappear.
Of course not those of ‘MY constitutional G*d-given right to discriminate against YOU ranks above your fictitious ‘right’ to non-discrimination’. Those will still be welcomed by some courts.
Btw, couldn’t courts, judges and justices refuse cases on the same grounds? [not to be confused with individual recusal but ‘I don’t take cases that would force me to rule in favor of people I do not approve of on religious grounds.]
The dissent says “The company could, for example, offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman.”
Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as “give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons”?
The dissent says “The company could, for example, offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman.”
Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as “give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons”?
Pro Bono — I asked that question (without the quotation) in my 11:18 last night. And I am pretty sure that’s where a non-negligible % of the people in the US want to go.
In a word, backward.
We’re well on our way. The Dahlia Lithwick article that Nigel linked in the other thread (thanks, Nigel!) lays the direction and mechanisms out pretty clearly.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/supreme-court-john-roberts-winning-americans-losing.html
In the “saying the quiet parts out loud” department, I don’t think they’re quite there yet with race the way they are with trans people and drag queens and, yes, the rest of us weirdos.
Yet.
Pro Bono — I asked that question (without the quotation) in my 11:18 last night. And I am pretty sure that’s where a non-negligible % of the people in the US want to go.
In a word, backward.
We’re well on our way. The Dahlia Lithwick article that Nigel linked in the other thread (thanks, Nigel!) lays the direction and mechanisms out pretty clearly.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/supreme-court-john-roberts-winning-americans-losing.html
In the “saying the quiet parts out loud” department, I don’t think they’re quite there yet with race the way they are with trans people and drag queens and, yes, the rest of us weirdos.
Yet.
This being a nonessential (and, if generic, non-bespoke) service, I’d say that would be an option. But they could not refuse to sell that to persons they dislike. In other words, if an interracial couple would actually want such a website, the company could not say no. Or more extreme: if Jews wanted to buy antisemtic merchandise from a company run by and for neonazis, the company would have to sell them that but could not be forced to customize the stuff.
That would not be necessarily absurd, the Jewish customers could be a film company looking for props or a non-discrimination group that wants the stuff for an awareness campaign.
Hm, can capitalists refuse to sell the commies the rope that the latter want to string them up with?
(to paraphrase a famous quote)
This being a nonessential (and, if generic, non-bespoke) service, I’d say that would be an option. But they could not refuse to sell that to persons they dislike. In other words, if an interracial couple would actually want such a website, the company could not say no. Or more extreme: if Jews wanted to buy antisemtic merchandise from a company run by and for neonazis, the company would have to sell them that but could not be forced to customize the stuff.
That would not be necessarily absurd, the Jewish customers could be a film company looking for props or a non-discrimination group that wants the stuff for an awareness campaign.
Hm, can capitalists refuse to sell the commies the rope that the latter want to string them up with?
(to paraphrase a famous quote)
Btw that reminds me of an old joke:
A dirt-poor Russian Jew finds a friend (as poor as him) reading an antisemitic newspaper. “Why do you read that vile stuff?”, he asks. “Oh, when I feel really depressed about my situation, it’s uplifting to read how mighty and powerful I actually am.”
Btw that reminds me of an old joke:
A dirt-poor Russian Jew finds a friend (as poor as him) reading an antisemitic newspaper. “Why do you read that vile stuff?”, he asks. “Oh, when I feel really depressed about my situation, it’s uplifting to read how mighty and powerful I actually am.”
Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as “give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons”
Highly unlikely and, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, not one case has come up in which a person claimed a first amendment right to refuse services to a person of another race.
Colorado makes it a crime (or a violation of civil law) to refuse services based on a variety of criteria. Christian and Muslim opposition to gay marriage predates the notion of gay marriage by centuries. President Obama famously declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. In Colorado, a traditional Christian or Muslim can be prosecuted for refusing to deliver marriage-related services to gay people. This and birth control are the only 1st Amendment issues I recall SCOTUS addressing when the state sought to compel someone to act against their teachings. Both are areas of well-known, specific tenets of faith that, for some reason, some people just can’t leave alone. We were told before gay marriage became legal–I argued this point myself–that we should just live and let live. It was a persuasive argument; however, some are not content with that, it seems.
The race thing is a red herring. It hasn’t come up and almost certainly won’t come up. The ruling addresses a very narrow slice of commercial activity in which there is a long-recognized religious overlap. Marriage and dietary restrictions were features of religion long before the state took any meaningful interest. Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer. Ditto, a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu wedding service provider: an activist Christian could not compel any of these to “change sides” and render Christian-themed wedding services nor could an atheist demand a non-sectarian wedding. Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith’s purview.
The more interesting question(s) involve a woman’s right to receive intimate commercial services from a woman or a man as opposed to a trans-woman or to preserve private, traditionally (and for good practical reasons as well) single sex facilities and spaces. This is especially interesting given that the left wing of SCOTUS is all female.
Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as “give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons”
Highly unlikely and, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, not one case has come up in which a person claimed a first amendment right to refuse services to a person of another race.
Colorado makes it a crime (or a violation of civil law) to refuse services based on a variety of criteria. Christian and Muslim opposition to gay marriage predates the notion of gay marriage by centuries. President Obama famously declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. In Colorado, a traditional Christian or Muslim can be prosecuted for refusing to deliver marriage-related services to gay people. This and birth control are the only 1st Amendment issues I recall SCOTUS addressing when the state sought to compel someone to act against their teachings. Both are areas of well-known, specific tenets of faith that, for some reason, some people just can’t leave alone. We were told before gay marriage became legal–I argued this point myself–that we should just live and let live. It was a persuasive argument; however, some are not content with that, it seems.
The race thing is a red herring. It hasn’t come up and almost certainly won’t come up. The ruling addresses a very narrow slice of commercial activity in which there is a long-recognized religious overlap. Marriage and dietary restrictions were features of religion long before the state took any meaningful interest. Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer. Ditto, a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu wedding service provider: an activist Christian could not compel any of these to “change sides” and render Christian-themed wedding services nor could an atheist demand a non-sectarian wedding. Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith’s purview.
The more interesting question(s) involve a woman’s right to receive intimate commercial services from a woman or a man as opposed to a trans-woman or to preserve private, traditionally (and for good practical reasons as well) single sex facilities and spaces. This is especially interesting given that the left wing of SCOTUS is all female.
Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer.
Well, duh. Nobody is using the power of the state to compel Mexican restaurants to also provide a kosher menue, either.
However, if your Mexican restaurant is open to the public, you cannot refuse to serve a gay couple (their status affirmed by LAW) on the basis of “religously held beliefs”.
This is a relatively simple concept.
PS: The last paragraph of McKinney’s squib is a tell.
Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer.
Well, duh. Nobody is using the power of the state to compel Mexican restaurants to also provide a kosher menue, either.
However, if your Mexican restaurant is open to the public, you cannot refuse to serve a gay couple (their status affirmed by LAW) on the basis of “religously held beliefs”.
This is a relatively simple concept.
PS: The last paragraph of McKinney’s squib is a tell.
Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith’s purview.
What about allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills?
https://www.singlecare.com/blog/can-a-pharmacist-refuse-to-fill-a-prescription/
Or this:
From https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/
Not weddings, not food.
As for the trans issue, I was called “sir” five times in the San Francisco (!!!) airport on a trip last spring, and looked at askance in the “ladies” room. It’s not only trans-women who are going to be affected by whatever decisions are made about these issues. Florida just passed a law that says not that you have to prove (i.e. no self-id-ing) you’re a trans-woman to use the ladies room (which in itself would basically mean everyone would have to be ready to prove that), but that everyone has to use the room of the gender they were assigned at birth (ditto).
This expresses my concerns quite nicely:
From here:
Wait until the Moms for Liberty crowd turn their attention away from books and toward bathrooms. Or maybe they already have.
Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith’s purview.
What about allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills?
https://www.singlecare.com/blog/can-a-pharmacist-refuse-to-fill-a-prescription/
Or this:
From https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/
Not weddings, not food.
As for the trans issue, I was called “sir” five times in the San Francisco (!!!) airport on a trip last spring, and looked at askance in the “ladies” room. It’s not only trans-women who are going to be affected by whatever decisions are made about these issues. Florida just passed a law that says not that you have to prove (i.e. no self-id-ing) you’re a trans-woman to use the ladies room (which in itself would basically mean everyone would have to be ready to prove that), but that everyone has to use the room of the gender they were assigned at birth (ditto).
This expresses my concerns quite nicely:
From here:
Wait until the Moms for Liberty crowd turn their attention away from books and toward bathrooms. Or maybe they already have.
Again, there is a difference between refusing a service to a specific person that one offers to the general public and refusing a special service. One cannot (usually) be forced to offer a service but if one does offer a service one cannot (usually) refuse it selectively (unless the law explicitly restricts it). “I sell X but not Y” is different from “I sell to X but not Y”. And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).
Again, there is a difference between refusing a service to a specific person that one offers to the general public and refusing a special service. One cannot (usually) be forced to offer a service but if one does offer a service one cannot (usually) refuse it selectively (unless the law explicitly restricts it). “I sell X but not Y” is different from “I sell to X but not Y”. And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).
My 9:43 could have used an editor. My 20-month-old companion declined the work. Hopefully it’s all clear enough.
My 9:43 could have used an editor. My 20-month-old companion declined the work. Hopefully it’s all clear enough.
And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).
No so. See pharmacists.
And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).
No so. See pharmacists.
In relation to pharmacists, I do think of my version of “the Amish bus driver rule” (which I have never heard of) in relation to pharmacists. My version is: if you’re a teetotalling Baptist (like my mother’s people), don’t expect to get hired to work in a liquor store and then refuse to see liquor. If you don’t want to do the damned job, then go into some other field. Instead they’re allowed to play god, for no medical reason, with other people’s lives.
In relation to pharmacists, I do think of my version of “the Amish bus driver rule” (which I have never heard of) in relation to pharmacists. My version is: if you’re a teetotalling Baptist (like my mother’s people), don’t expect to get hired to work in a liquor store and then refuse to see liquor. If you don’t want to do the damned job, then go into some other field. Instead they’re allowed to play god, for no medical reason, with other people’s lives.
see s/b serve
see s/b serve
I’d like to hear more from the lawyers here on the distinction between refusing to provide a service because of the nature of the service versus refusing to provide a service because of the nature of the prospective customer.
I get the kosher and halal thing, but that’s a very clear case involving the nature of the service. A kosher or halal butcher isn’t going to sell pork to anyone, regardless of the would-be buyer’s religion.
So let’s say you bake cakes to sell publicly. Let’s say someone wants you to bake a cake that reads, “Happy birthday, Jeff!” If you would sell that cake to a straight person, you’d have to sell it to a gay person (ISTM).
Now let’s say someone wants to buy a wedding cake that reads, “Now we can f**k!” (only without the asterisks). I’d imagine you’d be allowed by law to refuse to make such a cake, so long as you refused anyone who wanted to buy it.
What if someone wants a cake that simply reads, “Congratulations!”? No problem, right? What if you find out, somehow, that it’s a cake for a gay couple’s wedding? Can you refuse, even if you’d make exactly the same cake for a straight couple? I don’t think so, but IANAL (of any kind, let alone one who specializes in this stuff).
I’d like to hear more from the lawyers here on the distinction between refusing to provide a service because of the nature of the service versus refusing to provide a service because of the nature of the prospective customer.
I get the kosher and halal thing, but that’s a very clear case involving the nature of the service. A kosher or halal butcher isn’t going to sell pork to anyone, regardless of the would-be buyer’s religion.
So let’s say you bake cakes to sell publicly. Let’s say someone wants you to bake a cake that reads, “Happy birthday, Jeff!” If you would sell that cake to a straight person, you’d have to sell it to a gay person (ISTM).
Now let’s say someone wants to buy a wedding cake that reads, “Now we can f**k!” (only without the asterisks). I’d imagine you’d be allowed by law to refuse to make such a cake, so long as you refused anyone who wanted to buy it.
What if someone wants a cake that simply reads, “Congratulations!”? No problem, right? What if you find out, somehow, that it’s a cake for a gay couple’s wedding? Can you refuse, even if you’d make exactly the same cake for a straight couple? I don’t think so, but IANAL (of any kind, let alone one who specializes in this stuff).
To make things a bit greyer, let’s say someone wants to buy a cake reading, “Congratulations, Margaret and Theresa!” You ask what it’s for and you’re told it’s for someone’s twin daughters who both graduated college. That’s fine, so you happily agree. You later find out, somehow, that it’s really for a two women who are getting married, and you cancel the order. Then what? Is it really any of your business what the cake is for, or just what words you’re willing to put on a cake?
To make things a bit greyer, let’s say someone wants to buy a cake reading, “Congratulations, Margaret and Theresa!” You ask what it’s for and you’re told it’s for someone’s twin daughters who both graduated college. That’s fine, so you happily agree. You later find out, somehow, that it’s really for a two women who are getting married, and you cancel the order. Then what? Is it really any of your business what the cake is for, or just what words you’re willing to put on a cake?
For the pharmacists there used to be the rule (until SCOTUS intervened) that one could only refuse, if there was an alternative, i.e. somebody else in that pharmacy that would do it instead or another pharmacy nearby, i.e. the ‘inevitably comes with the job’ did not apply. What made it to SCOTUS were cases were there was no alternative (no other pharmacy in town, no one else in the pharmacy that w/could hand out the contraceptive) and in one extreme case the pharmacist not only refused to honor the prescription but refused to give it back to the customer in order to prevent that (he or she) could go to another pharmacy instead.
Iirc SCOTUS decided that at least the former was legal, i.e., even if there was no other pharmacy within a 100 miles, a pharmacist could refuse the service based on religious grounds and that it would be a violation of the same rights, if the pharmacist would get forced to refer the refused customer to an alternative because that too would mean ‘complicity’ in the sin.
I can’t remember, whether SCOTUS passed judgement on the latter case too (i.e. the active interference to prevent the customer from getting the service elsewhere).
Iirc the reasoning was that there always is an alternative, facts be damned, and that no burden is unreasonably high.
For the pharmacists there used to be the rule (until SCOTUS intervened) that one could only refuse, if there was an alternative, i.e. somebody else in that pharmacy that would do it instead or another pharmacy nearby, i.e. the ‘inevitably comes with the job’ did not apply. What made it to SCOTUS were cases were there was no alternative (no other pharmacy in town, no one else in the pharmacy that w/could hand out the contraceptive) and in one extreme case the pharmacist not only refused to honor the prescription but refused to give it back to the customer in order to prevent that (he or she) could go to another pharmacy instead.
Iirc SCOTUS decided that at least the former was legal, i.e., even if there was no other pharmacy within a 100 miles, a pharmacist could refuse the service based on religious grounds and that it would be a violation of the same rights, if the pharmacist would get forced to refer the refused customer to an alternative because that too would mean ‘complicity’ in the sin.
I can’t remember, whether SCOTUS passed judgement on the latter case too (i.e. the active interference to prevent the customer from getting the service elsewhere).
Iirc the reasoning was that there always is an alternative, facts be damned, and that no burden is unreasonably high.
Saying the quiet parts out loud.
Birth control will be on the block too, if they have their way.
And for afters.
Saying the quiet parts out loud.
Birth control will be on the block too, if they have their way.
And for afters.
Birth control will be on the block too
With the caveat that getting your perscription thru the mail may be off the table as well.
Side note: if a state bans getting certain medicines (contraceptives, abortifacients) thru the mail, and there is a major US mail hub in that state, does that mean they can block mail between two states where abortion is legal? Would you bet on this Supreme Court agreeing with you?
Birth control will be on the block too
With the caveat that getting your perscription thru the mail may be off the table as well.
Side note: if a state bans getting certain medicines (contraceptives, abortifacients) thru the mail, and there is a major US mail hub in that state, does that mean they can block mail between two states where abortion is legal? Would you bet on this Supreme Court agreeing with you?
wj, I haven’t followed the more recent developments in relation to prescriptions by mail. I wouldn’t put anything past this court, or past right wing zealots in particular, but in the abstract (and IANAL), I would like to know by what legal mechanism states can interfere with a federal operation like the USPS.
Speaking of interfering…
wj, I haven’t followed the more recent developments in relation to prescriptions by mail. I wouldn’t put anything past this court, or past right wing zealots in particular, but in the abstract (and IANAL), I would like to know by what legal mechanism states can interfere with a federal operation like the USPS.
Speaking of interfering…
On the brighter side….
On the brighter side….
The race thing is a red herring. It hasn’t come up and almost certainly won’t come up.
This from McKinney made me smile ruefully. And, by extension, any assumptions about contraception, even without Janie’s links. If we didn’t already regard McKinney’s predictions with considerable scepticism (I’m thinking of his frequent dismissals of Trump as sui generis, and therefore not a phenomenon to draw worried conclusions from), this would make us do so. Once you open the way for legal rights to exist, they will be exercised . This is not a named law, like cleek’s law, as far as I know, but it is an iron-clad certainty. And, the existence of Clarence and Ginni Thomas’s marriage notwithstanding, racism and disapproval of miscegenation is alive and well, in America as in many other places. But only in America, as far as I know, do we see initial moves which would enable its legal implementation. (American exceptionalism does not apply in the case of same sex marriage, of course, since plenty of other countries make it illegal, but in America we are also beginning to see the possibility of the right to it being endangered.)
The race thing is a red herring. It hasn’t come up and almost certainly won’t come up.
This from McKinney made me smile ruefully. And, by extension, any assumptions about contraception, even without Janie’s links. If we didn’t already regard McKinney’s predictions with considerable scepticism (I’m thinking of his frequent dismissals of Trump as sui generis, and therefore not a phenomenon to draw worried conclusions from), this would make us do so. Once you open the way for legal rights to exist, they will be exercised . This is not a named law, like cleek’s law, as far as I know, but it is an iron-clad certainty. And, the existence of Clarence and Ginni Thomas’s marriage notwithstanding, racism and disapproval of miscegenation is alive and well, in America as in many other places. But only in America, as far as I know, do we see initial moves which would enable its legal implementation. (American exceptionalism does not apply in the case of same sex marriage, of course, since plenty of other countries make it illegal, but in America we are also beginning to see the possibility of the right to it being endangered.)
Well, the GOP has taken steps in the recent past to destroy the USPS and some parts of the leadership openly call for it to be ended as a public entity.
And who would consider it still as a safe bet that SCOTUS would handle challenges to its constitutionality as obviously frivolous and unfounded just because the establishment of the postal service is mentioned explicitly in the Constitution?
Apart from that, there is the precedent of the Comstock laws. And why would SCOTUS not delegate that to the states too?
And opening the mail to find sexual contraband would of course not be an ‘unreasonable’ search since there is very good reason that this way will be used to smuggle it. There is no right to privacy after all (unless it’s about bribes legal and illegal).
Well, the GOP has taken steps in the recent past to destroy the USPS and some parts of the leadership openly call for it to be ended as a public entity.
And who would consider it still as a safe bet that SCOTUS would handle challenges to its constitutionality as obviously frivolous and unfounded just because the establishment of the postal service is mentioned explicitly in the Constitution?
Apart from that, there is the precedent of the Comstock laws. And why would SCOTUS not delegate that to the states too?
And opening the mail to find sexual contraband would of course not be an ‘unreasonable’ search since there is very good reason that this way will be used to smuggle it. There is no right to privacy after all (unless it’s about bribes legal and illegal).
I seem to remember when Colorado had some libertarian tendencies.
I’ve lived here for 35 years now. Three things that have changed over that period that matter in such a discussion: the state population almost doubled, almost all of the growth occurred along the Front Range urban corridor, and the rural parts of the state became much more dependent on the urban/suburban parts to fund infrastructure and services.
I’ve long said that there are two things that many libertarian tendencies can’t survive: dominant high population density and clear subsidies for rural areas. Density drives a tolerance for (and indeed, demand for) assorted regulations. And it really pains the rural representatives in the legislature here to admit that they can’t fund education, transportation, communications, and health care without subsidies provided by the urban corridor.
OTOH, some libertarian tendencies are still alive and well. Compared to the country as a whole, we have a very high rate of start-up firms and all of the support services that requires.
I seem to remember when Colorado had some libertarian tendencies.
I’ve lived here for 35 years now. Three things that have changed over that period that matter in such a discussion: the state population almost doubled, almost all of the growth occurred along the Front Range urban corridor, and the rural parts of the state became much more dependent on the urban/suburban parts to fund infrastructure and services.
I’ve long said that there are two things that many libertarian tendencies can’t survive: dominant high population density and clear subsidies for rural areas. Density drives a tolerance for (and indeed, demand for) assorted regulations. And it really pains the rural representatives in the legislature here to admit that they can’t fund education, transportation, communications, and health care without subsidies provided by the urban corridor.
OTOH, some libertarian tendencies are still alive and well. Compared to the country as a whole, we have a very high rate of start-up firms and all of the support services that requires.
I asked that question (without the quotation) in my 11:18 last night.
Apologies JanieM, I didn’t mean to ignore you, I just wanted to make what I think is a different point.
Which is that the three centrist* Justices, and therefore presumably all nine, agree that the constitution allows a company to offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman.**
I can see nothing in logic or law to say that the same would not apply to a biblical quotation proscribing intertribal marriage.
My conclusion is that all the Justices would allow any provider of expressive services to insist on including religious language which would be likely in practice to exclude groups they disapprove of.
*I can’t think what the most apposite adjective would be.
**This is problematic, in that no such biblical quotation exists: the Bible tells the stories of several polygamists, notably Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines, with no evident disapproval. “Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” is as close as it gets.
I asked that question (without the quotation) in my 11:18 last night.
Apologies JanieM, I didn’t mean to ignore you, I just wanted to make what I think is a different point.
Which is that the three centrist* Justices, and therefore presumably all nine, agree that the constitution allows a company to offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman.**
I can see nothing in logic or law to say that the same would not apply to a biblical quotation proscribing intertribal marriage.
My conclusion is that all the Justices would allow any provider of expressive services to insist on including religious language which would be likely in practice to exclude groups they disapprove of.
*I can’t think what the most apposite adjective would be.
**This is problematic, in that no such biblical quotation exists: the Bible tells the stories of several polygamists, notably Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines, with no evident disapproval. “Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” is as close as it gets.
Pro Bono, no problem, i commented on it more in a “great minds think alike” state of mind — glad to see someone else thinking about that aspect of it.
Pro Bono, no problem, i commented on it more in a “great minds think alike” state of mind — glad to see someone else thinking about that aspect of it.
Back when the wedding cake case was hot news, I wondered how the SCOTUS would have ruled if the baker had been an employee rather than a business owner. (A job consumer rather than a “job creator”, IOW.) The worker turning away business based on his personal “faith” might annoy the boss. Imagine the boss fires the baker; the baker sues claiming religious discrimination; the case makes it all the way up to the SCOTUS.
Any bets on how this SCOTUS would rule, in such a fight between capitalism and religion?
–TP
Back when the wedding cake case was hot news, I wondered how the SCOTUS would have ruled if the baker had been an employee rather than a business owner. (A job consumer rather than a “job creator”, IOW.) The worker turning away business based on his personal “faith” might annoy the boss. Imagine the boss fires the baker; the baker sues claiming religious discrimination; the case makes it all the way up to the SCOTUS.
Any bets on how this SCOTUS would rule, in such a fight between capitalism and religion?
–TP
TP: see pharmacists, although those businesses tend to be big chains these days.
Anecdotally, I do believe that early on when the birth control refusals came up, at least one chain tried to say that pharmacists couldn’t come and work for them unless they were willing to dispense all the legal drugs the stores carried. Maybe that triggered a SCOTUS case, I don’t remember and don’t have time to look it up. (Maybe Hartmut knows.)
TP: see pharmacists, although those businesses tend to be big chains these days.
Anecdotally, I do believe that early on when the birth control refusals came up, at least one chain tried to say that pharmacists couldn’t come and work for them unless they were willing to dispense all the legal drugs the stores carried. Maybe that triggered a SCOTUS case, I don’t remember and don’t have time to look it up. (Maybe Hartmut knows.)
And PS: I’m betting religion would win with this court. There are plenty of ways to mask or minimize or spread around the downside in relation to profit, but there’s not a very good way to hide it if you’re making one of these religious zealots back down from trying to run other people’s lives.
And PS: I’m betting religion would win with this court. There are plenty of ways to mask or minimize or spread around the downside in relation to profit, but there’s not a very good way to hide it if you’re making one of these religious zealots back down from trying to run other people’s lives.
in the abstract (and IANAL), I would like to know by what legal mechanism states can interfere with a federal operation like the USPS.
At a guess (IANAL, too), the argument would start like this: the USPS is an “independent agency”, so it doesn’t count as a “Federal” operation. It’s obvious garbage. But that’s hardly unique or restricting with this Court. See claiming a 2nd Amendment right to essentially unrestricted (well, getting there fast) individual gun ownership, the “well regulated militia” detail notwithstanding.
in the abstract (and IANAL), I would like to know by what legal mechanism states can interfere with a federal operation like the USPS.
At a guess (IANAL, too), the argument would start like this: the USPS is an “independent agency”, so it doesn’t count as a “Federal” operation. It’s obvious garbage. But that’s hardly unique or restricting with this Court. See claiming a 2nd Amendment right to essentially unrestricted (well, getting there fast) individual gun ownership, the “well regulated militia” detail notwithstanding.
As for the trans issue, I was called “sir” five times in the San Francisco (!!!) airport on a trip last spring, and looked at askance in the “ladies” room. It’s not only trans-women who are going to be affected by whatever decisions are made about these issues.
There is no answer for this. FWIW, given our history, I hope it’s ok if I say I’m really sorry you had to put up with that.
I probably should not have brought up the trans issue. It risks an unintended thread jack. Good points germane to AA are raised above.
If you don’t want to do the damned job, then go into some other field. Instead they’re allowed to play god, for no medical reason, with other people’s lives.
I’m somewhat of two minds on the pharmacist thing. My natural inclination is “It’s my store, I’ll sell what I want.” I lose that argument because, “I’m a doctor, I’ll provide whatever or withhold whatever treatment I want based on my religious/personal beliefs” doesn’t dance with two exceptions: elective abortion and sex change plastic surgery. Why does McKTex carve these out? Because they are elective and not standard of care outside a limited subset of practitioners. Again, this is an argument for another day, but as to birth control, pharmacists are in the business of dispensing legal, prescription drugs. Religiously exempt employers are not in the business of providing health insurance. Requiring someone “in the business” to perform the full range of standard of care services is a fair balance. Imposing requirements on conscientious objectors who want to or are mandated to provide health insurance is different: no good is served by saying “either your insurance covers BC or you can’t buy insurance for your employees”.
To make things a bit greyer, let’s say someone wants to buy a cake reading, “Congratulations, Margaret and Theresa!”
Good question. Baker loses, IMO.. The request is facially neutral. The baker has no right to inquire into the purpose the customer intends to put the cake, just like the customer has no right to compel the baker to send a message that explicitly conflicts with the baker’s religious views.
As for birth control and mixed marriage being on the horizon, IMO that’s so huge a reach as to be, if anything, barely even theoretical. The percentage of Americans, including Republicans, who approve of mixed marriage is 94%. Gallup approval of black/white marriage https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email. The same is basically true for birth control. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/6/7/a-bipartisan-majority-of-voters-support-expanding-access-to-birth-control Plus, on the mixed marriage thing, regardless of what one dumbass says, the 14th Amendment puts that notion to rest.
So, GFTNC, I offer the above in response to your observation that This from McKinney made me smile ruefully. And, by extension, any assumptions about contraception, even without Janie’s links. If we didn’t already regard McKinney’s predictions with considerable scepticism (I’m thinking of his frequent dismissals of Trump as sui generis, and therefore not a phenomenon to draw worried conclusions from), this would make us do so. Once you open the way for legal rights to exist, they will be exercised. [GFTNC, this is clearly wrong–there are thousands of conjectured “rights” bandied about, of which .0001% will ever get into court] This is not a named law, like cleek’s law, as far as I know, but it is an iron-clad certainty. And, the existence of Clarence and Ginni Thomas’s marriage notwithstanding, racism and disapproval of miscegenation is alive and well, [This is factually incorrect, to say the least] in America as in many other places. But only in America, as far as I know, do we see initial moves which would enable its legal implementation.
To repeat, no one since 1964 had credibly advanced–or even advanced at all–the idea that their religion allows them to discriminate commercially based on race. People are free to like and associate with whoever they prefer, but the discrimination that the law cares about is commercial (using the sense very, very broadly).
As for the trans issue, I was called “sir” five times in the San Francisco (!!!) airport on a trip last spring, and looked at askance in the “ladies” room. It’s not only trans-women who are going to be affected by whatever decisions are made about these issues.
There is no answer for this. FWIW, given our history, I hope it’s ok if I say I’m really sorry you had to put up with that.
I probably should not have brought up the trans issue. It risks an unintended thread jack. Good points germane to AA are raised above.
If you don’t want to do the damned job, then go into some other field. Instead they’re allowed to play god, for no medical reason, with other people’s lives.
I’m somewhat of two minds on the pharmacist thing. My natural inclination is “It’s my store, I’ll sell what I want.” I lose that argument because, “I’m a doctor, I’ll provide whatever or withhold whatever treatment I want based on my religious/personal beliefs” doesn’t dance with two exceptions: elective abortion and sex change plastic surgery. Why does McKTex carve these out? Because they are elective and not standard of care outside a limited subset of practitioners. Again, this is an argument for another day, but as to birth control, pharmacists are in the business of dispensing legal, prescription drugs. Religiously exempt employers are not in the business of providing health insurance. Requiring someone “in the business” to perform the full range of standard of care services is a fair balance. Imposing requirements on conscientious objectors who want to or are mandated to provide health insurance is different: no good is served by saying “either your insurance covers BC or you can’t buy insurance for your employees”.
To make things a bit greyer, let’s say someone wants to buy a cake reading, “Congratulations, Margaret and Theresa!”
Good question. Baker loses, IMO.. The request is facially neutral. The baker has no right to inquire into the purpose the customer intends to put the cake, just like the customer has no right to compel the baker to send a message that explicitly conflicts with the baker’s religious views.
As for birth control and mixed marriage being on the horizon, IMO that’s so huge a reach as to be, if anything, barely even theoretical. The percentage of Americans, including Republicans, who approve of mixed marriage is 94%. Gallup approval of black/white marriage https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email. The same is basically true for birth control. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/6/7/a-bipartisan-majority-of-voters-support-expanding-access-to-birth-control Plus, on the mixed marriage thing, regardless of what one dumbass says, the 14th Amendment puts that notion to rest.
So, GFTNC, I offer the above in response to your observation that This from McKinney made me smile ruefully. And, by extension, any assumptions about contraception, even without Janie’s links. If we didn’t already regard McKinney’s predictions with considerable scepticism (I’m thinking of his frequent dismissals of Trump as sui generis, and therefore not a phenomenon to draw worried conclusions from), this would make us do so. Once you open the way for legal rights to exist, they will be exercised. [GFTNC, this is clearly wrong–there are thousands of conjectured “rights” bandied about, of which .0001% will ever get into court] This is not a named law, like cleek’s law, as far as I know, but it is an iron-clad certainty. And, the existence of Clarence and Ginni Thomas’s marriage notwithstanding, racism and disapproval of miscegenation is alive and well, [This is factually incorrect, to say the least] in America as in many other places. But only in America, as far as I know, do we see initial moves which would enable its legal implementation.
To repeat, no one since 1964 had credibly advanced–or even advanced at all–the idea that their religion allows them to discriminate commercially based on race. People are free to like and associate with whoever they prefer, but the discrimination that the law cares about is commercial (using the sense very, very broadly).
Gender:
Thanks for the “I’m really sorry,” McK. I appreciate it.
I didn’t, though, tell the story to complain about being called “sir” — I have been called sir now and then throughout my adult life, and given the way I dress and operate in general, it’s not surprising. (Fun fact: I’m pretty sure I have never been called “sir” in Maine. That kind of tolerance for variation, and the underlying ethos of live and let live — that’s one of the reasons I love living here.)
What bothers me is the prospect — for me, for trans women, for other women like me who do not present ourselves in the conventional “feminine” way — of having to deal with random bigoted busybodies challenging people who don’t conform to their stereotypes, who are not doing anything more sinister than trying to take a leak between legs of a journey. (Or on errand stops. or during the entr’acte. Or whatever).
If this hysteria were carried to its logical conclusion, it would require anyone who wants to go into a public bathroom to carry some kind of official proof of which bathroom the DeSantises of the world think they belong in. Maybe there would be attendants! The TSA on steroids!
But of course, these laws are not going to be carried to their logical conclusion, they’re just there for 1) campaign purposes; 2) the creation of a climate of fear for non-conforming people of all sorts; and 3) to give cover to random bigoted busybodies to harass the kind of people that the DeSantises of the world want to shove back into the closet. (Broadly speaking.)
*****
Birth control:
From here:
That’s two dumbasses.
From a more respectable site (the National Association of Attorneys General):
Gender:
Thanks for the “I’m really sorry,” McK. I appreciate it.
I didn’t, though, tell the story to complain about being called “sir” — I have been called sir now and then throughout my adult life, and given the way I dress and operate in general, it’s not surprising. (Fun fact: I’m pretty sure I have never been called “sir” in Maine. That kind of tolerance for variation, and the underlying ethos of live and let live — that’s one of the reasons I love living here.)
What bothers me is the prospect — for me, for trans women, for other women like me who do not present ourselves in the conventional “feminine” way — of having to deal with random bigoted busybodies challenging people who don’t conform to their stereotypes, who are not doing anything more sinister than trying to take a leak between legs of a journey. (Or on errand stops. or during the entr’acte. Or whatever).
If this hysteria were carried to its logical conclusion, it would require anyone who wants to go into a public bathroom to carry some kind of official proof of which bathroom the DeSantises of the world think they belong in. Maybe there would be attendants! The TSA on steroids!
But of course, these laws are not going to be carried to their logical conclusion, they’re just there for 1) campaign purposes; 2) the creation of a climate of fear for non-conforming people of all sorts; and 3) to give cover to random bigoted busybodies to harass the kind of people that the DeSantises of the world want to shove back into the closet. (Broadly speaking.)
*****
Birth control:
From here:
That’s two dumbasses.
From a more respectable site (the National Association of Attorneys General):
Sorry, I’m getting my dumbasses mixed up. The first one was Sen. Braun from Indiana on the subject of interracial marriage (from the link in my 11:35 a.m. comment). The second is Clarence Thomas, on birth control.
*****
And as a language nerd who doesn’t conform to gender norms, I have to offer a brief, frustrated rant on the subject of pronouns and forms of address in English. I really can’t fathom what my gender has to do with the process of buying a Snickers bar in an airport newsagent’s shop. But courtesy apparently requires certain words from the shop clerk to the customer, and the only words we have are gendered. Grrrrrrrrrr.
I have never had this happen to me without the person who called me “sir” ending up embarrassed as soon as I open my mouth. Or even just as soon as they do more than glance at my baseball cap. I always just smile and say thanks for whatever transaction we have just completed.
Sorry, I’m getting my dumbasses mixed up. The first one was Sen. Braun from Indiana on the subject of interracial marriage (from the link in my 11:35 a.m. comment). The second is Clarence Thomas, on birth control.
*****
And as a language nerd who doesn’t conform to gender norms, I have to offer a brief, frustrated rant on the subject of pronouns and forms of address in English. I really can’t fathom what my gender has to do with the process of buying a Snickers bar in an airport newsagent’s shop. But courtesy apparently requires certain words from the shop clerk to the customer, and the only words we have are gendered. Grrrrrrrrrr.
I have never had this happen to me without the person who called me “sir” ending up embarrassed as soon as I open my mouth. Or even just as soon as they do more than glance at my baseball cap. I always just smile and say thanks for whatever transaction we have just completed.
This is factually incorrect, to say the least
You must tell this to the many mixed race couples who are so often abused and insulted in the street. This (a quick and cursory search) is from 2017, but I have frequently read similar accounts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-years-loving-case-interracial-couples-still-face-hostility-from-strangers/
And as for the popularity of contraception, I notice that abortion rights were very popular too, yet as soon as this extraordinary SCOTUS struck down Roe, thousands of women were suddenly unable to get abortions, or had to go to considerable expense and trouble (e.g. moving to different states), and doctors who performed abortions or advocated for them (as in the case of the raped 10 year old) were threatened and sanctioned.
So, regarding the non-cleek’s-law, we shall see. I notice from your formulation that I was slightly unclear: I am not talking about conjectured “rights”, I am talking about legal rights, first perhaps conjectured, then confirmed and established. (This may be a slightly different issue, FWIW, but I notice recently many decisions to allow, or even mandate, religious symbols like carvings of the ten commandments, rituals such as organised prayer etc in state institutions such as courthouses, schools, college football grounds etc. Was this not settled as inadmissable in the US, until recent decisions opened the way to it?)
This is factually incorrect, to say the least
You must tell this to the many mixed race couples who are so often abused and insulted in the street. This (a quick and cursory search) is from 2017, but I have frequently read similar accounts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-years-loving-case-interracial-couples-still-face-hostility-from-strangers/
And as for the popularity of contraception, I notice that abortion rights were very popular too, yet as soon as this extraordinary SCOTUS struck down Roe, thousands of women were suddenly unable to get abortions, or had to go to considerable expense and trouble (e.g. moving to different states), and doctors who performed abortions or advocated for them (as in the case of the raped 10 year old) were threatened and sanctioned.
So, regarding the non-cleek’s-law, we shall see. I notice from your formulation that I was slightly unclear: I am not talking about conjectured “rights”, I am talking about legal rights, first perhaps conjectured, then confirmed and established. (This may be a slightly different issue, FWIW, but I notice recently many decisions to allow, or even mandate, religious symbols like carvings of the ten commandments, rituals such as organised prayer etc in state institutions such as courthouses, schools, college football grounds etc. Was this not settled as inadmissable in the US, until recent decisions opened the way to it?)
as opposed to bakers, web designers, and pharmacists…and who know who all the f else, opposed to serving gays, trans, etc.:
To repeat, no one since 1964 had credibly advanced–or even advanced at all–the idea that their religion allows them to discriminate commercially based on race.
In both instances the exact same language and arguments are used to justify the intolerance.
Simply amazing, no?
as opposed to bakers, web designers, and pharmacists…and who know who all the f else, opposed to serving gays, trans, etc.:
To repeat, no one since 1964 had credibly advanced–or even advanced at all–the idea that their religion allows them to discriminate commercially based on race.
In both instances the exact same language and arguments are used to justify the intolerance.
Simply amazing, no?
a slippery slope to the ultimate revocation of the 1960’s Civil Rights revolution? A short primer:
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-faith-based-discrimination/
a slippery slope to the ultimate revocation of the 1960’s Civil Rights revolution? A short primer:
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-faith-based-discrimination/
Thanks, bobbyp. I’ve been trying to gather individual instances that I remember only vaguely…having all this in one place saves a lot of trouble. (And is depressing.)
Thanks, bobbyp. I’ve been trying to gather individual instances that I remember only vaguely…having all this in one place saves a lot of trouble. (And is depressing.)
a slippery slope to the ultimate revocation of the 1960’s Civil Rights revolution?
I expect that the reactionaries are hoping (or, considering how untethered to reality many of them are, expecting) to have happen.
But, compulsive optimist that I am, I think it’s rather more likely that we will see a reaction that makes the original opposition to Roe look minor. With an impact on the politics of a couple of younger generations which will impact the US for decades to come. Not just reversal on current culture wars issues, but on cultural issues that the reactionaries never dreamed could be rethought.
a slippery slope to the ultimate revocation of the 1960’s Civil Rights revolution?
I expect that the reactionaries are hoping (or, considering how untethered to reality many of them are, expecting) to have happen.
But, compulsive optimist that I am, I think it’s rather more likely that we will see a reaction that makes the original opposition to Roe look minor. With an impact on the politics of a couple of younger generations which will impact the US for decades to come. Not just reversal on current culture wars issues, but on cultural issues that the reactionaries never dreamed could be rethought.
McTX: …elective abortion and sex change plastic surgery. Why does McKTex carve these out? Because they are elective and not standard of care outside a limited subset of practitioners.
If you, dear reader, define “elective abortion” according to your interpretation of Scripture, that’s your right. If you define it according to your interpretation of Biology, ditto. A reasonable person might ask whether your personal interpretation of either one is worth deferring to.
I have never contemplated “sex change plastic surgery” and I bet McKinney never has either. I bet that’s because neither of us has ever had a gnawing feeling that our gender identity is somehow mismatched with our plumbing. So I say neither of us has much authority to define “elective” in this case.
What I have contemplated is “elective” medically-assisted suicide. I say “elective” because I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would want a doctor to help me die unless I was too incapacitated to do the deed myself. (As I have often pointed out, sex may be fun to argue about, but death affects more people.) It’s possible that somebody — Alito, say — would deny me the “elective right to die” on some basis. But that basis couldn’t actually be Biology, could it?
–TP
McTX: …elective abortion and sex change plastic surgery. Why does McKTex carve these out? Because they are elective and not standard of care outside a limited subset of practitioners.
If you, dear reader, define “elective abortion” according to your interpretation of Scripture, that’s your right. If you define it according to your interpretation of Biology, ditto. A reasonable person might ask whether your personal interpretation of either one is worth deferring to.
I have never contemplated “sex change plastic surgery” and I bet McKinney never has either. I bet that’s because neither of us has ever had a gnawing feeling that our gender identity is somehow mismatched with our plumbing. So I say neither of us has much authority to define “elective” in this case.
What I have contemplated is “elective” medically-assisted suicide. I say “elective” because I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would want a doctor to help me die unless I was too incapacitated to do the deed myself. (As I have often pointed out, sex may be fun to argue about, but death affects more people.) It’s possible that somebody — Alito, say — would deny me the “elective right to die” on some basis. But that basis couldn’t actually be Biology, could it?
–TP
This is particularly rich from Thomas.
…Justice Thomas would reconsider and overrule “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” He added that the doctrine of substantive due process is “’particularly dangerous’” because it “’exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority’
That does not seem a concern for him at all, when advancing his own opinions over those of Congress.
This is particularly rich from Thomas.
…Justice Thomas would reconsider and overrule “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” He added that the doctrine of substantive due process is “’particularly dangerous’” because it “’exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority’
That does not seem a concern for him at all, when advancing his own opinions over those of Congress.
“sex change plastic surgery” seems to be what philologists term a hapax legomenon, a phrase that only has one recorded usage. If you were to drop it in Google (which I don’t recommend), you’d get about 3,600, but that also gets you sex change/plastic surgery, sex change, plastic surgery and a number of porn sites. However, there is no principled division between plastic surgery for sex change and plastic surgery for other things.
I mean, I get the rhetorical effect. You’ve got cleft palates, nose jobs, double lidding the eyes, more than a fair number of tummy tucks and enhancements of this, that and the other so he’s got to separate those out or he’s up sh*t creek in a wire covered fan powered dixie cup. But it’s pretty bad when you have to make up phrases to try and get your point across.
“sex change plastic surgery” seems to be what philologists term a hapax legomenon, a phrase that only has one recorded usage. If you were to drop it in Google (which I don’t recommend), you’d get about 3,600, but that also gets you sex change/plastic surgery, sex change, plastic surgery and a number of porn sites. However, there is no principled division between plastic surgery for sex change and plastic surgery for other things.
I mean, I get the rhetorical effect. You’ve got cleft palates, nose jobs, double lidding the eyes, more than a fair number of tummy tucks and enhancements of this, that and the other so he’s got to separate those out or he’s up sh*t creek in a wire covered fan powered dixie cup. But it’s pretty bad when you have to make up phrases to try and get your point across.
This is perhaps, as McK said of the topic, bordering on a threadjack, although certainly related to the other things we’re talking about. I’ll try to make it into its own post at some point, but the things I want to say about it won’t fit into one post, so I’m not sure I’ll ever get the time or mental energy to address it in depth.
McK: The more interesting question(s) involve a woman’s right to receive intimate commercial services from a woman or a man as opposed to a trans-woman or to preserve private, traditionally (and for good practical reasons as well) single sex facilities and spaces.
I do not care for all-women’s spaces. Defining me as *belonging* in them erases me. Women who want women-only spaces are not speaking for all women; some of us don’t want what they want. (Intimate services of all kinds are a separable topic that I’m not going to touch right now, if ever. But the best doctor I ever had was a gay man…I would give a lot to have him back as my PCP. And yes, I know not everyone feels the way I do about that. That’s my underlying point at every turn. No one speaks for all of us.)
I’m not trans, or really what I think most people mean when they call themselves non-binary. I just prefer mixed spaces. (Bathroom and locker room issues are their own thing, also for another time.) After all, I went to a college where my class had 60 women out of an entering class of 900, and I was quite happy with that situation. And not for dating purposes.
This is perhaps, as McK said of the topic, bordering on a threadjack, although certainly related to the other things we’re talking about. I’ll try to make it into its own post at some point, but the things I want to say about it won’t fit into one post, so I’m not sure I’ll ever get the time or mental energy to address it in depth.
McK: The more interesting question(s) involve a woman’s right to receive intimate commercial services from a woman or a man as opposed to a trans-woman or to preserve private, traditionally (and for good practical reasons as well) single sex facilities and spaces.
I do not care for all-women’s spaces. Defining me as *belonging* in them erases me. Women who want women-only spaces are not speaking for all women; some of us don’t want what they want. (Intimate services of all kinds are a separable topic that I’m not going to touch right now, if ever. But the best doctor I ever had was a gay man…I would give a lot to have him back as my PCP. And yes, I know not everyone feels the way I do about that. That’s my underlying point at every turn. No one speaks for all of us.)
I’m not trans, or really what I think most people mean when they call themselves non-binary. I just prefer mixed spaces. (Bathroom and locker room issues are their own thing, also for another time.) After all, I went to a college where my class had 60 women out of an entering class of 900, and I was quite happy with that situation. And not for dating purposes.
Personally, I have never felt the need for all-women spaces for myself (have never heard of anybody saying I “belong” in them), or indeed female-only medical practitioners. But, as Janie suggests, some women do, and I support their rights, whether they have had personal experience of male sexual predation or violence, or not.
Personally, I have never felt the need for all-women spaces for myself (have never heard of anybody saying I “belong” in them), or indeed female-only medical practitioners. But, as Janie suggests, some women do, and I support their rights, whether they have had personal experience of male sexual predation or violence, or not.
just throwing this out there….good editorial by Charles M. Blow in the NY Times
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2023/07/affirmative-inaction.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e202c1b258b95e200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e202c1b258b95e200d
just throwing this out there….good editorial by Charles M. Blow in the NY Times
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2023/07/affirmative-inaction.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e202c1b258b95e200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e202c1b258b95e200d
bobbyp: was this the piece you meant?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html
Headlined The Supreme Court Didn’t Put Racism on a Leash. It Granted It License.
bobbyp: was this the piece you meant?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html
Headlined The Supreme Court Didn’t Put Racism on a Leash. It Granted It License.
bobbyp — i went in to try to fix your link but there’s no NYT link in there … I think this would be the one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html
But I don’t have a sub or a login so can’t give a gift link. I can read it on my no-script firefox, though.
bobbyp — i went in to try to fix your link but there’s no NYT link in there … I think this would be the one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html
But I don’t have a sub or a login so can’t give a gift link. I can read it on my no-script firefox, though.
I always forget I can give a limited number of gift links!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html?unlocked_article_code=f_isjkwjLC94KCOl3RZRwgm-9TeFLG3evQrtlaTUYSfo6QiiK9MA7xBuAiAw1jnldmJ7_cCi8JsGFUc8omHcsz5-0d39pc2I_rqlBLkYlyxbooA8zXmHUsgb0hukAwc4lv1q50mqIJIFy6a0IEvZa-rsvXYLA3OOglLfD25xwBahnnx3JXG29Ee75f2Wt47Z06srisJy5WkHGJQvdYtay39nQWgjVG9brmVtHRK4d-AB92qHnVPdOoGvoaAfUP1FaxUyflFauAHMQmtCBeQEvVx8CBROF3JK3trBOcX4JhU9YcY1UpjlBUGdQrg3wWCR6p16K5bBVBY0vF6ZemYsA3S49HFOs0O_cTA&smid=url-share
I always forget I can give a limited number of gift links!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/opinion/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html?unlocked_article_code=f_isjkwjLC94KCOl3RZRwgm-9TeFLG3evQrtlaTUYSfo6QiiK9MA7xBuAiAw1jnldmJ7_cCi8JsGFUc8omHcsz5-0d39pc2I_rqlBLkYlyxbooA8zXmHUsgb0hukAwc4lv1q50mqIJIFy6a0IEvZa-rsvXYLA3OOglLfD25xwBahnnx3JXG29Ee75f2Wt47Z06srisJy5WkHGJQvdYtay39nQWgjVG9brmVtHRK4d-AB92qHnVPdOoGvoaAfUP1FaxUyflFauAHMQmtCBeQEvVx8CBROF3JK3trBOcX4JhU9YcY1UpjlBUGdQrg3wWCR6p16K5bBVBY0vF6ZemYsA3S49HFOs0O_cTA&smid=url-share
Another link to the article.
The Supreme Court Enshrines Racial Imbalance
Another link to the article.
The Supreme Court Enshrines Racial Imbalance
I think this handy explainer about college admissions is more useful.
I think this handy explainer about college admissions is more useful.
Snarki, that is classic!
Snarki, that is classic!
The “Admitted because we value legacy tradition” may be the next admissions-related court challenge.
There’s a study that indicated if Harvard’s admissions were based strictly on merit over 50% of those admitted would be Asian.
The “Admitted because we value legacy tradition” may be the next admissions-related court challenge.
There’s a study that indicated if Harvard’s admissions were based strictly on merit over 50% of those admitted would be Asian.
From the list in the link, the race admittance criteria is the only one based on an immutable physical characteristic. The others are based on accidents of birth or individual proclivities.
From the list in the link, the race admittance criteria is the only one based on an immutable physical characteristic. The others are based on accidents of birth or individual proclivities.
@CharlesWT: define merit. Has nothing that’s been said here penetrated? Did you look at the comic at Snarki’s link? Do you think “merit” means one number, the highest SAT score?
While we’re at it, let’s revive the attempt to legislate the value of pi. That makes equally much sense.
*****
The “Admitted because we value legacy tradition”
may beis the next admissions-related court challenge.See here. (Headline sneak peek: “Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard.”)
@CharlesWT: define merit. Has nothing that’s been said here penetrated? Did you look at the comic at Snarki’s link? Do you think “merit” means one number, the highest SAT score?
While we’re at it, let’s revive the attempt to legislate the value of pi. That makes equally much sense.
*****
The “Admitted because we value legacy tradition”
may beis the next admissions-related court challenge.See here. (Headline sneak peek: “Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard.”)
From the list in the link, the race admittance criteria is the only one based on an immutable physical characteristic. The others are based on accidents of birth or individual proclivities.
I don’t even know where to start. “Based on an immutable physical characteristic” is as much an over-simplification as the idea that we can evaluate applicants based on “merit.” (WTF.)
And what is an “accident of birth”?
I give up.
From the list in the link, the race admittance criteria is the only one based on an immutable physical characteristic. The others are based on accidents of birth or individual proclivities.
I don’t even know where to start. “Based on an immutable physical characteristic” is as much an over-simplification as the idea that we can evaluate applicants based on “merit.” (WTF.)
And what is an “accident of birth”?
I give up.
Does CharlesWT imply that “race” is NOT “an accident of birth”? Or what?
–TP
Does CharlesWT imply that “race” is NOT “an accident of birth”? Or what?
–TP
There’s a study that indicated if Harvard’s admissions were based strictly on merit over 50% of those admitted would be Asian.
I need to say this once again…I dislike the way that doing well on standardized tests and having access to AP classes gets characterized as “merit” to the discounting of other important traits, personal qualities, and experiences.
Same with how people who struggle to meet the time and workload constraints of college are portrayed as being less worthy of that educational opportunity and as being less promising scholars/thinkers/whatever than those who get through every institutional requirement.
I’m not just upset for the sake of my non-asian students, either. I’m upset on behalf of my asian students who make it in on “merit” and then find themselves struggling due to health, or mental health, or family distractions, or because they were sexually assaulted, or whatever it is that puts an unexpected obstacle in their path. They really struggle to get past those ideas of “merit” and find a way out of their challenges.
Being likely to succeed is not the same thing as merit, and having a more difficult path to a degree is not an indication that one has less merit. There’s a huge element of having resources and preparation and support that gets treated as if it is an inborn quality of merit, and that whole line of thinking is crap.
There’s a study that indicated if Harvard’s admissions were based strictly on merit over 50% of those admitted would be Asian.
I need to say this once again…I dislike the way that doing well on standardized tests and having access to AP classes gets characterized as “merit” to the discounting of other important traits, personal qualities, and experiences.
Same with how people who struggle to meet the time and workload constraints of college are portrayed as being less worthy of that educational opportunity and as being less promising scholars/thinkers/whatever than those who get through every institutional requirement.
I’m not just upset for the sake of my non-asian students, either. I’m upset on behalf of my asian students who make it in on “merit” and then find themselves struggling due to health, or mental health, or family distractions, or because they were sexually assaulted, or whatever it is that puts an unexpected obstacle in their path. They really struggle to get past those ideas of “merit” and find a way out of their challenges.
Being likely to succeed is not the same thing as merit, and having a more difficult path to a degree is not an indication that one has less merit. There’s a huge element of having resources and preparation and support that gets treated as if it is an inborn quality of merit, and that whole line of thinking is crap.
I mean, I get the rhetorical effect. You’ve got cleft palates, nose jobs, double lidding the eyes, more than a fair number of tummy tucks and enhancements of this, that and the other so he’s got to separate those out or he’s up sh*t creek in a wire covered fan powered dixie cup. But it’s pretty bad when you have to make up phrases to try and get your point across.
You seem a bit metaphorically challenged today. As for terminology, I’ll tell the doctors I speak with regularly, including a plastic surgeon, that they got it wrong. The only clarification I would make to my description would be to insert the word “cosmetic”, which is used interchangeably with “plastic” when talking to doctors but not so much outside that arena. The “change” is not of the person’s biological sex (which, BTW, is not assigned at birth, but rather is a product of and comes into being at fertilization, just to be technically correct), but rather outward appearance, i.e. cosmetic.
I bet that’s because neither of us has ever had a gnawing feeling that our gender identity is somehow mismatched with our plumbing.
If and when we have a separate discussion on gender/trans’ issues, I’ll be happy to take this up. I mentioned the procedure as a carve-out to what exceptions there are to health care providers taking all comers for standard of case services in the larger context of the on-topic matter of AA.
I mean, I get the rhetorical effect. You’ve got cleft palates, nose jobs, double lidding the eyes, more than a fair number of tummy tucks and enhancements of this, that and the other so he’s got to separate those out or he’s up sh*t creek in a wire covered fan powered dixie cup. But it’s pretty bad when you have to make up phrases to try and get your point across.
You seem a bit metaphorically challenged today. As for terminology, I’ll tell the doctors I speak with regularly, including a plastic surgeon, that they got it wrong. The only clarification I would make to my description would be to insert the word “cosmetic”, which is used interchangeably with “plastic” when talking to doctors but not so much outside that arena. The “change” is not of the person’s biological sex (which, BTW, is not assigned at birth, but rather is a product of and comes into being at fertilization, just to be technically correct), but rather outward appearance, i.e. cosmetic.
I bet that’s because neither of us has ever had a gnawing feeling that our gender identity is somehow mismatched with our plumbing.
If and when we have a separate discussion on gender/trans’ issues, I’ll be happy to take this up. I mentioned the procedure as a carve-out to what exceptions there are to health care providers taking all comers for standard of case services in the larger context of the on-topic matter of AA.
And what is an “accident of birth”?
I usually take this to mean that an individual’s success is related to who his/her parents were/are and not merit. IOW, a less crude way of saying “lucky sperm” club (or, “lucky egg” club, depending).
And what is an “accident of birth”?
I usually take this to mean that an individual’s success is related to who his/her parents were/are and not merit. IOW, a less crude way of saying “lucky sperm” club (or, “lucky egg” club, depending).
nous — thank you for having the patience to keep repeating it. Unsnarkily, even.
nous — thank you for having the patience to keep repeating it. Unsnarkily, even.
I dislike the way that doing well on standardized tests and having access to AP classes gets characterized as “merit” to the discounting of other important traits, personal qualities, and experiences.
I think “merit” in this context means something like ‘objective indicia of high level academic ability’ or something along those lines, analogous to having the best time or winning a spelling bee or some other objective competitive measure.
To your point, there are subjective elements to “merit” as well. I think the majority opinion leaves it open for anyone to raise ‘as a plus’ their race/culture/gender as something that presented a challenge or gave insight or had some other impact that makes that person a stand out in a crowd of over-achievers.
But here’s what I’m not tracking: neither Harvard nor UNC nor any other college or university I know of wants to exclude African Americans or any other ethnic or cultural category. Nor does any company I know of. Eliminating race per se as a specific “plus” isn’t going to make good people bad. So what I’m not getting is why people think this decision is going to create racism/exclusion where no one seems to want that outcome. The most that is going to happen is that some percentage of African American and Hispanic applicants will go to Vandy or Rice instead of Harvard or Stanford, or go to Baylor instead of the University of Texas, or whatever. Where does the racism come from?
Completely off topic, but I just got pinged. A former employee of mine is in the news and not in a good way: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12268263/Rudy-Farias-escorted-Houston-hotel-meeting-investigators.html
I dislike the way that doing well on standardized tests and having access to AP classes gets characterized as “merit” to the discounting of other important traits, personal qualities, and experiences.
I think “merit” in this context means something like ‘objective indicia of high level academic ability’ or something along those lines, analogous to having the best time or winning a spelling bee or some other objective competitive measure.
To your point, there are subjective elements to “merit” as well. I think the majority opinion leaves it open for anyone to raise ‘as a plus’ their race/culture/gender as something that presented a challenge or gave insight or had some other impact that makes that person a stand out in a crowd of over-achievers.
But here’s what I’m not tracking: neither Harvard nor UNC nor any other college or university I know of wants to exclude African Americans or any other ethnic or cultural category. Nor does any company I know of. Eliminating race per se as a specific “plus” isn’t going to make good people bad. So what I’m not getting is why people think this decision is going to create racism/exclusion where no one seems to want that outcome. The most that is going to happen is that some percentage of African American and Hispanic applicants will go to Vandy or Rice instead of Harvard or Stanford, or go to Baylor instead of the University of Texas, or whatever. Where does the racism come from?
Completely off topic, but I just got pinged. A former employee of mine is in the news and not in a good way: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12268263/Rudy-Farias-escorted-Houston-hotel-meeting-investigators.html
“Based on an immutable physical characteristic” is as much an over-simplification as the idea that we can evaluate applicants based on “merit.”
Then why base any admission criteria on over-simplifications? A significant portion of black students in ivy league universities are children of first-generation immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, etc. with no connection to America’s racial history.
And what is an “accident of birth”?
Athletic, birth location, intelligence, alma mater parent, culture, socio-economic, first generation, donator parents, sexual orientation, artistic talent, musical ability.
Does CharlesWT imply that “race” is NOT “an accident of birth”? Or what?
Race isn’t an accident of birth. Black parents have black children. White parents have white children. Black/white parents have something in between. The other admissions characteristics can be characteristics of an individual of any race.
“Based on an immutable physical characteristic” is as much an over-simplification as the idea that we can evaluate applicants based on “merit.”
Then why base any admission criteria on over-simplifications? A significant portion of black students in ivy league universities are children of first-generation immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, etc. with no connection to America’s racial history.
And what is an “accident of birth”?
Athletic, birth location, intelligence, alma mater parent, culture, socio-economic, first generation, donator parents, sexual orientation, artistic talent, musical ability.
Does CharlesWT imply that “race” is NOT “an accident of birth”? Or what?
Race isn’t an accident of birth. Black parents have black children. White parents have white children. Black/white parents have something in between. The other admissions characteristics can be characteristics of an individual of any race.
Race isn’t an accident of birth. Black parents have black children. White parents have white children. Black/white parents have something in between.
I don’t think you quite understand what an accident of birth is. Pretty much everything about your circumstances when you were born is an accident of birth.
If you learned to play the guitar, maybe it was because someone in your family gave you guidance and encouragement, and maybe you inherited some talent, but maybe it was just because you decided you wanted to and you were the first musician in your family.
Getting hit by a car is an accident, but not of birth. Deciding to shave your head is not an accident, let alone an accident of birth.
Race is among the least controversial examples of accidents of birth. You don’t get to decide.
Race isn’t an accident of birth. Black parents have black children. White parents have white children. Black/white parents have something in between.
I don’t think you quite understand what an accident of birth is. Pretty much everything about your circumstances when you were born is an accident of birth.
If you learned to play the guitar, maybe it was because someone in your family gave you guidance and encouragement, and maybe you inherited some talent, but maybe it was just because you decided you wanted to and you were the first musician in your family.
Getting hit by a car is an accident, but not of birth. Deciding to shave your head is not an accident, let alone an accident of birth.
Race is among the least controversial examples of accidents of birth. You don’t get to decide.
Then why base any admission criteria on over-simplifications?
Because if you didn’t, there would be no criteria left. The nuance and complexity come in weighing a whole picture and making various trade-offs.
I am not even going to try to address the distinction CharlesWT is trying to make between accidents of birth and non-accidents.
Then why base any admission criteria on over-simplifications?
Because if you didn’t, there would be no criteria left. The nuance and complexity come in weighing a whole picture and making various trade-offs.
I am not even going to try to address the distinction CharlesWT is trying to make between accidents of birth and non-accidents.
Race is among the least controversial examples of accidents of birth.
You’re right when race is considered a social construct instead of a physical characteristic.
You don’t get to decide.
Other people are deciding for you.
Race is among the least controversial examples of accidents of birth.
You’re right when race is considered a social construct instead of a physical characteristic.
You don’t get to decide.
Other people are deciding for you.
You’re right when race is considered a social construct instead of a physical characteristic.
I don’t even know where to start. The social construction of distinctions based on skin color is what race is.
(Wikipedia)
It is the ill effects of the social construct that affirmative action was trying to chip away at.
Also, as to black applicants who aren’t descendants of US slaves — I get the distinction, and it’s not trivial. On the other hand, black people who are immigrants or the descendants of more recent immigrants are by no means immune to the effects of racism in general in this country. I have a friend who has told me stories….
You’re right when race is considered a social construct instead of a physical characteristic.
I don’t even know where to start. The social construction of distinctions based on skin color is what race is.
(Wikipedia)
It is the ill effects of the social construct that affirmative action was trying to chip away at.
Also, as to black applicants who aren’t descendants of US slaves — I get the distinction, and it’s not trivial. On the other hand, black people who are immigrants or the descendants of more recent immigrants are by no means immune to the effects of racism in general in this country. I have a friend who has told me stories….
Other people are deciding for you.
Meaning what? By deciding to have a child (or not trying hard enough not to)? For example, poor parents don’t get to decide to have a wealthy baby. “Well, it’s a good thing we decided to make junior here rich instead of poor like us. Now he can buy us some nice sh*t! Why didn’t all our poor friends think of this?”
It doesn’t really matter. The expression means what it means, regardless of whatever game it is you’re playing.
Other people are deciding for you.
Meaning what? By deciding to have a child (or not trying hard enough not to)? For example, poor parents don’t get to decide to have a wealthy baby. “Well, it’s a good thing we decided to make junior here rich instead of poor like us. Now he can buy us some nice sh*t! Why didn’t all our poor friends think of this?”
It doesn’t really matter. The expression means what it means, regardless of whatever game it is you’re playing.
McTX: If and when we have a separate discussion on gender/trans’ issues, I’ll be happy to take this up. I mentioned the procedure as a carve-out to what exceptions there are to health care providers taking all comers for standard of case services in the larger context of the on-topic matter of AA.
“Your observation/comment/question is off-topic” is a perfectly fine dodge, I suppose. I do wonder what your views on “elective” abortion or “sex change plastic surgery” have to do with the “on-topic matter of AA” in the first place, though.
Believe me, McKninney, I do NOT expect to make YOU think about the basis of your professed opinions or fundamental beliefs — including your assessment of “on-topic”. Your views (and, I confess, mine) are probably immutable traits arising from accidents of birth.
–TP
McTX: If and when we have a separate discussion on gender/trans’ issues, I’ll be happy to take this up. I mentioned the procedure as a carve-out to what exceptions there are to health care providers taking all comers for standard of case services in the larger context of the on-topic matter of AA.
“Your observation/comment/question is off-topic” is a perfectly fine dodge, I suppose. I do wonder what your views on “elective” abortion or “sex change plastic surgery” have to do with the “on-topic matter of AA” in the first place, though.
Believe me, McKninney, I do NOT expect to make YOU think about the basis of your professed opinions or fundamental beliefs — including your assessment of “on-topic”. Your views (and, I confess, mine) are probably immutable traits arising from accidents of birth.
–TP
I do wonder what your views on “elective” abortion or “sex change plastic surgery” have to do with the “on-topic matter of AA” in the first place, though.
Good catch and sorry for the confusion. I put “AA” when I meant to refer to the related discussion of religious exemption from providing certain services addressed in the web designer decision. I’ve been pretty consistent about trying to avoid thread-jacking, and I will definitely engage in the right context.
I do wonder what your views on “elective” abortion or “sex change plastic surgery” have to do with the “on-topic matter of AA” in the first place, though.
Good catch and sorry for the confusion. I put “AA” when I meant to refer to the related discussion of religious exemption from providing certain services addressed in the web designer decision. I’ve been pretty consistent about trying to avoid thread-jacking, and I will definitely engage in the right context.
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
Question for the peanut gallery: If white people were disproportionately “not in attendance” at Princeton, Harvard and Yale, what do you think would happen…public policy-wise?
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
Question for the peanut gallery: If white people were disproportionately “not in attendance” at Princeton, Harvard and Yale, what do you think would happen…public policy-wise?
Meaning what?
Meaning that if race is a social construct other people not you decide what race you are. If there’s some ambiguity people can choose how they self-identify. 23AndMe has said that people tend to start identifying as black at 27% black. For many of them, they may have enough black characteristics that the larger society insists that they are black or not white.
Meaning what?
Meaning that if race is a social construct other people not you decide what race you are. If there’s some ambiguity people can choose how they self-identify. 23AndMe has said that people tend to start identifying as black at 27% black. For many of them, they may have enough black characteristics that the larger society insists that they are black or not white.
Thanks all for fixing my link above. It was just another senior moment. If I remember correctly, Mr. Blow made some good points.
Thanks all for fixing my link above. It was just another senior moment. If I remember correctly, Mr. Blow made some good points.
But here’s what I’m not tracking: neither Harvard nor UNC nor any other college or university I know of wants to exclude African Americans or any other ethnic or cultural category. Nor does any company I know of. Eliminating race per se as a specific “plus” isn’t going to make good people bad. So what I’m not getting is why people think this decision is going to create racism/exclusion where no one seems to want that outcome. The most that is going to happen is that some percentage of African American and Hispanic applicants will go to Vandy or Rice instead of Harvard or Stanford, or go to Baylor instead of the University of Texas, or whatever. Where does the racism come from?
The points you raise also hold true in the other direction. None of these schools want to exclude any Asian American students out of animus, and those Asian American students who are complaining about being passed over for students of other backgrounds with lower scores and fewer achievements will all find their way into schools as well. Which is what I have been saying all along. The test scores are a false narrative of “merit” and what this comes down to is schools looking to create a dynamic and productive mix of students for their campus.
The real unfairness, though, lies in the people who gain admission through the legacy process, or through the family thumb on the scales. Get rid of them and we can admit both more diversity candidates and more high scoring students.
It’s not like Harvard needs any of that money. They can survive entirely on their endowment as is, and a fraction of that money would save any number of smaller universities that are struggling.
As for the question of “why have admission standards at all then?” I have to say that it’s an absolutely valid question in philosophical and educational terms, and I wish that were something we could indulge more just on practical terms, but too many institutions (my own included) are far too invested in the marketing of institutional prestige. And for the exclusive private universities there is a level of resources and prestige reserved for the lucky few that no other institutions, and they wish to preserve that prestige for themselves.
But in terms of actual educational outcomes? I think most of this actually distracts from the educational mission at the undergraduate level.
But here’s what I’m not tracking: neither Harvard nor UNC nor any other college or university I know of wants to exclude African Americans or any other ethnic or cultural category. Nor does any company I know of. Eliminating race per se as a specific “plus” isn’t going to make good people bad. So what I’m not getting is why people think this decision is going to create racism/exclusion where no one seems to want that outcome. The most that is going to happen is that some percentage of African American and Hispanic applicants will go to Vandy or Rice instead of Harvard or Stanford, or go to Baylor instead of the University of Texas, or whatever. Where does the racism come from?
The points you raise also hold true in the other direction. None of these schools want to exclude any Asian American students out of animus, and those Asian American students who are complaining about being passed over for students of other backgrounds with lower scores and fewer achievements will all find their way into schools as well. Which is what I have been saying all along. The test scores are a false narrative of “merit” and what this comes down to is schools looking to create a dynamic and productive mix of students for their campus.
The real unfairness, though, lies in the people who gain admission through the legacy process, or through the family thumb on the scales. Get rid of them and we can admit both more diversity candidates and more high scoring students.
It’s not like Harvard needs any of that money. They can survive entirely on their endowment as is, and a fraction of that money would save any number of smaller universities that are struggling.
As for the question of “why have admission standards at all then?” I have to say that it’s an absolutely valid question in philosophical and educational terms, and I wish that were something we could indulge more just on practical terms, but too many institutions (my own included) are far too invested in the marketing of institutional prestige. And for the exclusive private universities there is a level of resources and prestige reserved for the lucky few that no other institutions, and they wish to preserve that prestige for themselves.
But in terms of actual educational outcomes? I think most of this actually distracts from the educational mission at the undergraduate level.
Meaning that if race is a social construct other people not you decide what race you are.
Is that true for everyone? Do I get to decide what race someone else is, but not what race I am? Or is my vote is so diluted that I have no real say in my or anyone else’s race? Does any of this have anything to do with whether race, such as it is conceptually, an accident of birth?
I’m thinking not.
Meaning that if race is a social construct other people not you decide what race you are.
Is that true for everyone? Do I get to decide what race someone else is, but not what race I am? Or is my vote is so diluted that I have no real say in my or anyone else’s race? Does any of this have anything to do with whether race, such as it is conceptually, an accident of birth?
I’m thinking not.
Does anyone else remember anything about a judge in a previous affirmative-action case years ago saying something about socioeconomic considerations in college admissions being insufficiently race neutral because Black people tend to be poorer than white people? In other words, if you looked at socioeconomics instead of race, it would be a sort of sleight of hand intended to get the same result as considering race without explicitly doing so.
I’ve googled unsuccessfully, but I swear I remember something like that (along with my head exploding when I heard/read it).
Does anyone else remember anything about a judge in a previous affirmative-action case years ago saying something about socioeconomic considerations in college admissions being insufficiently race neutral because Black people tend to be poorer than white people? In other words, if you looked at socioeconomics instead of race, it would be a sort of sleight of hand intended to get the same result as considering race without explicitly doing so.
I’ve googled unsuccessfully, but I swear I remember something like that (along with my head exploding when I heard/read it).
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
Not a puzzle at all, bobbyp. It’s simply that the correct formulation is that nobody wants to admit to racism.
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
Not a puzzle at all, bobbyp. It’s simply that the correct formulation is that nobody wants to admit to racism.
hsh, that is the exact kind of argument I expect SCOTUS to use in the next round. And they will find something to justify legacy admissions as completely unproblematic.
hsh, that is the exact kind of argument I expect SCOTUS to use in the next round. And they will find something to justify legacy admissions as completely unproblematic.
I’m just getting around to reading the Boston Review article bobbyp linked last night at 7:20. It includes this gem:
I can’t even.
I’m just getting around to reading the Boston Review article bobbyp linked last night at 7:20. It includes this gem:
I can’t even.
Does anyone else remember anything about a judge in a previous affirmative-action case years ago saying something about socioeconomic considerations in college admissions being insufficiently race neutral because Black people tend to be poorer than white people?
A couple of things. First, while it might be possible that a trial court level judge said something like this–I’ve never heard of it–no federal court of appeals has ever made such a ruling and it would be incredible, if not more than incredible if SCOTUS were to adopt that line of reasoning. Second, if something like this were the controlling law in some circuit (these are almost always federal questions decided in federal court), we would know about it.
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
If outcome proves cause, then we’d have to agree that the country is somehow structured to favor Asians and Jews above all others.
The real unfairness, though, lies in the people who gain admission through the legacy process, or through the family thumb on the scales. Get rid of them and we can admit both more diversity candidates and more high scoring students.
I’m not a fan of legacy admissions either, but they aren’t racist (Justice Brown is a Harvard alum X 2 and her daughter is at Harvard). I’ve read that 70% of Harvard legacy admittees are white, which means 30% are not. That makes whites slightly over-represented, but not by a huge amount.
Further, the issue is what is permissible under the XIV Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both are very clear: no discrimination based on race. SCOTUS decides constitutional and federal questions of law, not policy. Laws are limited by the Constitution. Race-sensitive remedies post-Brown v Board have consistently agreed and affirmed the principles decided in SFFA, the only difference being that prior decisions recognized limited exceptions as a remedy with a time limit. No prior law ever indicated that race conscious decision making was a permanent fixture in the constitutional landscape.
Does anyone else remember anything about a judge in a previous affirmative-action case years ago saying something about socioeconomic considerations in college admissions being insufficiently race neutral because Black people tend to be poorer than white people?
A couple of things. First, while it might be possible that a trial court level judge said something like this–I’ve never heard of it–no federal court of appeals has ever made such a ruling and it would be incredible, if not more than incredible if SCOTUS were to adopt that line of reasoning. Second, if something like this were the controlling law in some circuit (these are almost always federal questions decided in federal court), we would know about it.
If nobody wants racisms (i.e., “those outcomes”), then why do we still observe racisms? Truly a puzzle.
If outcome proves cause, then we’d have to agree that the country is somehow structured to favor Asians and Jews above all others.
The real unfairness, though, lies in the people who gain admission through the legacy process, or through the family thumb on the scales. Get rid of them and we can admit both more diversity candidates and more high scoring students.
I’m not a fan of legacy admissions either, but they aren’t racist (Justice Brown is a Harvard alum X 2 and her daughter is at Harvard). I’ve read that 70% of Harvard legacy admittees are white, which means 30% are not. That makes whites slightly over-represented, but not by a huge amount.
Further, the issue is what is permissible under the XIV Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both are very clear: no discrimination based on race. SCOTUS decides constitutional and federal questions of law, not policy. Laws are limited by the Constitution. Race-sensitive remedies post-Brown v Board have consistently agreed and affirmed the principles decided in SFFA, the only difference being that prior decisions recognized limited exceptions as a remedy with a time limit. No prior law ever indicated that race conscious decision making was a permanent fixture in the constitutional landscape.
While public universities are bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling, Congress could change the law to allow private universities like Harvard to use race-based affirmative action.
While public universities are bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling, Congress could change the law to allow private universities like Harvard to use race-based affirmative action.
SCOTUS decides constitutional and federal questions of law, not policy.
Certainly they are supposed to. But after Biden v Nebraska it’s hard to argue with a straight face that the current Court does so.
SCOTUS decides constitutional and federal questions of law, not policy.
Certainly they are supposed to. But after Biden v Nebraska it’s hard to argue with a straight face that the current Court does so.
The far-right Justices usually rely on originalism – interpretation according to how the law or constitution would have been understood at the time it was written. This allows them to rule, for example, in favour of murderers having guns, on the basis of what a group of rich white men thought about musket ownership in the 18th Century. When it comes to the 14th Amendment however, they are happy to ignore the legislative record from the time it was passed, which shows clearly that no one then thought it forbad legislation designed to advance disadvantaged groups.
The far-right Justices usually rely on originalism – interpretation according to how the law or constitution would have been understood at the time it was written. This allows them to rule, for example, in favour of murderers having guns, on the basis of what a group of rich white men thought about musket ownership in the 18th Century. When it comes to the 14th Amendment however, they are happy to ignore the legislative record from the time it was passed, which shows clearly that no one then thought it forbad legislation designed to advance disadvantaged groups.
You seem a bit metaphorically challenged today.
“It was just a metaphor!” Metaphors have a funny way of telling what people are thinking as does this one. I leave it to the reader to unpack that one
As for terminology, I’ll tell the doctors I speak with regularly, including a plastic surgeon, that they got it wrong.
“My best friend is a plastic surgeon” is a new one, I admit. However, I would extend GftNC’s “considerable scepticism” that this was actually what they meant or even said.
You seem a bit metaphorically challenged today.
“It was just a metaphor!” Metaphors have a funny way of telling what people are thinking as does this one. I leave it to the reader to unpack that one
As for terminology, I’ll tell the doctors I speak with regularly, including a plastic surgeon, that they got it wrong.
“My best friend is a plastic surgeon” is a new one, I admit. However, I would extend GftNC’s “considerable scepticism” that this was actually what they meant or even said.
Are religious schools subject to SCOTUS meddling in their admissions policies? If “Liberty University” (Falwell’s joint) decided, on its own reading of Scripture, that Jehovah demands proportional representation for the races He created — even if that takes explicit racial quotas to achieve — what would this SCOTUS have to say about it?
If Liberty U. deciding such a thing seems too fantastically improbable (which it is, of course; we all know why) imagine Harvard College declaring itself a religious school instead.
–TP
Are religious schools subject to SCOTUS meddling in their admissions policies? If “Liberty University” (Falwell’s joint) decided, on its own reading of Scripture, that Jehovah demands proportional representation for the races He created — even if that takes explicit racial quotas to achieve — what would this SCOTUS have to say about it?
If Liberty U. deciding such a thing seems too fantastically improbable (which it is, of course; we all know why) imagine Harvard College declaring itself a religious school instead.
–TP
I’m not a fan of legacy admissions either, but they aren’t racist (Justice Brown is a Harvard alum X 2 and her daughter is at Harvard). I’ve read that 70% of Harvard legacy admittees are white, which means 30% are not. That makes whites slightly over-represented, but not by a huge amount.
I really wasn’t thinking that legacy admission was racist so much as I was thinking that high scoring Asian Americans seeing themselves as being squeezed out by lower scoring African Americans and Latinos ignores the number of admissions taken straight off the top by legacy applicants. With a larger pool more high scoring general applicants could get in before feeling the pinch from trying to create more viewpoint diversity in the classroom.
I also wonder how much the familiarity of the legacy applicant with the school, and the level of family support amplifies the sense of identity and undercuts the sense of diversity on campus.
Again, not framing this from a legal standpoint, or from the standpoint of maintaining prestige, strictly in terms of the educational mission.
I’m not a fan of legacy admissions either, but they aren’t racist (Justice Brown is a Harvard alum X 2 and her daughter is at Harvard). I’ve read that 70% of Harvard legacy admittees are white, which means 30% are not. That makes whites slightly over-represented, but not by a huge amount.
I really wasn’t thinking that legacy admission was racist so much as I was thinking that high scoring Asian Americans seeing themselves as being squeezed out by lower scoring African Americans and Latinos ignores the number of admissions taken straight off the top by legacy applicants. With a larger pool more high scoring general applicants could get in before feeling the pinch from trying to create more viewpoint diversity in the classroom.
I also wonder how much the familiarity of the legacy applicant with the school, and the level of family support amplifies the sense of identity and undercuts the sense of diversity on campus.
Again, not framing this from a legal standpoint, or from the standpoint of maintaining prestige, strictly in terms of the educational mission.
This allows them to rule, for example, in favour of murderers having guns, on the basis of what a group of rich white men thought about musket ownership in the 18th Century.
Pro Bono–which SCt case uses this rationale?
When it comes to the 14th Amendment however, they are happy to ignore the legislative record from the time it was passed, which shows clearly that no one then thought it forbad legislation designed to advance disadvantaged groups.
Can you cite to the legislative record to which you are referring? I ask because not one equal protection case after Brown v Board, including Bakke and Gutter, make this argument.
I assume you are referring to the two Freedman’s Acts. Several points: (1) both Acts were passed prior to the XIV’s ratification and adoption, and therefore predate the applicability of the blanket ban on race based denials of equal protection and (2) both Acts addressed former slaves and providing some material means of survival post emancipation. Neither was explicitly race-based and (3) if the XIV’th isn’t sufficiently clear, the Act certainly is: no race-based discrimination, period full stop.
The intent behind both–as used in the original language–was to prevent state action that denied minorities, and most urgently at the time, African Americans, equal protection and equal access to schools, commercial goods and services and employment. The intent was to level the playing field and open doors.
A consequence of leveling the playing field was that, over time, different demographics (on a macro basis) outperformed other demographics in education and employment. The “why” of this remains hotly contested and unfortunately for everyone, the issues are pretty firmly coded “red” and “blue” making rational conversation difficult.
One likely casualty of SFFA is the end of explicit DEI regimes where those regimes are characterized by apportioning positions/status by race or gender. My personal belief is that the threat to DEI is the reason for the high levels of what looks to me like over-reaction since the opinion itself in no way risks creating a racist environment where none exists in the first place. As I noted above, colleges, universities and employers (larger ones for sure) are not going to become racist overnight because they can no longer assign weight to certain minorities in favor of other minorities (or possibly whites–I haven’t done that dive). So, the assertions that we are reverting the Jim Crow are overblown to say the least.
Critics of originalism have their own issues. Fundamentally, Courts *interpret* and *apply* the law. They don’t pass the law. Legislatures do that. However, invariably, cases arise in which the law’s intent is not immediately apparent (also true for contracts and any number of other writings that Courts are called on to construe and apply). This is such a common occurrence that an entire body of law has built up over the centuries on “statutory construction”. One of the leading sources of information to inform a court on a statute’s meaning is its legislative history–which is a form of originalism and one that you, probably inadvertently, were advocating for when raising contemporaneous legislation. Legislative history is in precisely the same class as *context* or how particular words and phrases were understood at the time.
Opponents of originalism often chafe at constitutional limitations on modern statutory initiatives–gun control being a singularly hot button example–because courts that purport apply the second amendment literally and in context tend to rule against most limitations of firearms ownership. I’m citing this as an example, not as a thread-jack.
My problem with the alternative to originalism–or as it was previously known, standard rules of statutory construction–is that the substitute is for an unelected judge or panel of judges to rewrite the law as they see fit. Even if one or more of my policy preferences is vindicated by this approach, the principle remains problematic because the door is now open for the next generation of unelected jurists to upend the prior generation’s “modernization” of an earlier statutory or constitutional provision.
Both statutes and the Constitution have amendatory processes. That is my preferred way of effecting change. FWIW.
Are religious schools subject to SCOTUS meddling in their admissions policies? If “Liberty University” (Falwell’s joint) decided, on its own reading of Scripture, that Jehovah demands proportional representation for the races He created — even if that takes explicit racial quotas to achieve — what would this SCOTUS have to say about it?
If Liberty U. deciding such a thing seems too fantastically improbable (which it is, of course; we all know why) imagine Harvard College declaring itself a religious school instead.
The line between entities subject to federal law and those not subject to federal law is fairly bright, at least in theory. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to any institution that receives federal funding or is engaged in interstate commerce (not my area of the law, so it gets murky for me beyond these threshold issues–for example, the employment piece of it attaches to any employer with more than 15 employees). If Liberty U does not receive federal funding, then *that* attachment to federal law fails. However, the accommodations piece of the act applies to any commercial enterprise engaged in “interstate commerce” which is a pretty broad category. Liberty, I assume, is a private, non-profit. Whether it’s admissions policies are reached by the Act, I don’t know. But, the direct answer to your question is: private actors, not involved in interstate commerce, have tons of leeway, but even with this, each case turns on its own facts. Clear as mud, right? Harvard can’t pull this off because it accepts federal funding.
Again, not framing this from a legal standpoint, or from the standpoint of maintaining prestige, strictly in terms of the educational mission.
Understood, and my point was, to a degree, aimed at the immediate post-SFFA reaction of challenging legacy admissions on equal protection grounds, which I think is a non-starter. The Court is interested on race (as a constitutional matter) and sex (a matter of statute), not class or other non-race/sex based forms of discrimination.
This allows them to rule, for example, in favour of murderers having guns, on the basis of what a group of rich white men thought about musket ownership in the 18th Century.
Pro Bono–which SCt case uses this rationale?
When it comes to the 14th Amendment however, they are happy to ignore the legislative record from the time it was passed, which shows clearly that no one then thought it forbad legislation designed to advance disadvantaged groups.
Can you cite to the legislative record to which you are referring? I ask because not one equal protection case after Brown v Board, including Bakke and Gutter, make this argument.
I assume you are referring to the two Freedman’s Acts. Several points: (1) both Acts were passed prior to the XIV’s ratification and adoption, and therefore predate the applicability of the blanket ban on race based denials of equal protection and (2) both Acts addressed former slaves and providing some material means of survival post emancipation. Neither was explicitly race-based and (3) if the XIV’th isn’t sufficiently clear, the Act certainly is: no race-based discrimination, period full stop.
The intent behind both–as used in the original language–was to prevent state action that denied minorities, and most urgently at the time, African Americans, equal protection and equal access to schools, commercial goods and services and employment. The intent was to level the playing field and open doors.
A consequence of leveling the playing field was that, over time, different demographics (on a macro basis) outperformed other demographics in education and employment. The “why” of this remains hotly contested and unfortunately for everyone, the issues are pretty firmly coded “red” and “blue” making rational conversation difficult.
One likely casualty of SFFA is the end of explicit DEI regimes where those regimes are characterized by apportioning positions/status by race or gender. My personal belief is that the threat to DEI is the reason for the high levels of what looks to me like over-reaction since the opinion itself in no way risks creating a racist environment where none exists in the first place. As I noted above, colleges, universities and employers (larger ones for sure) are not going to become racist overnight because they can no longer assign weight to certain minorities in favor of other minorities (or possibly whites–I haven’t done that dive). So, the assertions that we are reverting the Jim Crow are overblown to say the least.
Critics of originalism have their own issues. Fundamentally, Courts *interpret* and *apply* the law. They don’t pass the law. Legislatures do that. However, invariably, cases arise in which the law’s intent is not immediately apparent (also true for contracts and any number of other writings that Courts are called on to construe and apply). This is such a common occurrence that an entire body of law has built up over the centuries on “statutory construction”. One of the leading sources of information to inform a court on a statute’s meaning is its legislative history–which is a form of originalism and one that you, probably inadvertently, were advocating for when raising contemporaneous legislation. Legislative history is in precisely the same class as *context* or how particular words and phrases were understood at the time.
Opponents of originalism often chafe at constitutional limitations on modern statutory initiatives–gun control being a singularly hot button example–because courts that purport apply the second amendment literally and in context tend to rule against most limitations of firearms ownership. I’m citing this as an example, not as a thread-jack.
My problem with the alternative to originalism–or as it was previously known, standard rules of statutory construction–is that the substitute is for an unelected judge or panel of judges to rewrite the law as they see fit. Even if one or more of my policy preferences is vindicated by this approach, the principle remains problematic because the door is now open for the next generation of unelected jurists to upend the prior generation’s “modernization” of an earlier statutory or constitutional provision.
Both statutes and the Constitution have amendatory processes. That is my preferred way of effecting change. FWIW.
Are religious schools subject to SCOTUS meddling in their admissions policies? If “Liberty University” (Falwell’s joint) decided, on its own reading of Scripture, that Jehovah demands proportional representation for the races He created — even if that takes explicit racial quotas to achieve — what would this SCOTUS have to say about it?
If Liberty U. deciding such a thing seems too fantastically improbable (which it is, of course; we all know why) imagine Harvard College declaring itself a religious school instead.
The line between entities subject to federal law and those not subject to federal law is fairly bright, at least in theory. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to any institution that receives federal funding or is engaged in interstate commerce (not my area of the law, so it gets murky for me beyond these threshold issues–for example, the employment piece of it attaches to any employer with more than 15 employees). If Liberty U does not receive federal funding, then *that* attachment to federal law fails. However, the accommodations piece of the act applies to any commercial enterprise engaged in “interstate commerce” which is a pretty broad category. Liberty, I assume, is a private, non-profit. Whether it’s admissions policies are reached by the Act, I don’t know. But, the direct answer to your question is: private actors, not involved in interstate commerce, have tons of leeway, but even with this, each case turns on its own facts. Clear as mud, right? Harvard can’t pull this off because it accepts federal funding.
Again, not framing this from a legal standpoint, or from the standpoint of maintaining prestige, strictly in terms of the educational mission.
Understood, and my point was, to a degree, aimed at the immediate post-SFFA reaction of challenging legacy admissions on equal protection grounds, which I think is a non-starter. The Court is interested on race (as a constitutional matter) and sex (a matter of statute), not class or other non-race/sex based forms of discrimination.
The challenge today is, what that happens (even partially) on the web is interstate commerce? If Liberty has its admission forms online, and someone from another state uses that to enroll and pay admission/tuition, does that constitute “interstate commerce”?
Or if a student from the same state uses the website to pay tuition, but the ISP and website server are in a different state, does that qualify?
I think we can ignore the case where everything is instate, but the network path chances to go out of state sometimes. Just as we discount (well, except in a couple of new antiabortion bills) exactly where mail travels between sender and receiver.
The challenge today is, what that happens (even partially) on the web is interstate commerce? If Liberty has its admission forms online, and someone from another state uses that to enroll and pay admission/tuition, does that constitute “interstate commerce”?
Or if a student from the same state uses the website to pay tuition, but the ISP and website server are in a different state, does that qualify?
I think we can ignore the case where everything is instate, but the network path chances to go out of state sometimes. Just as we discount (well, except in a couple of new antiabortion bills) exactly where mail travels between sender and receiver.
McTx: A consequence of leveling the playing field was that, over time, different demographics (on a macro basis) outperformed other demographics in education and employment. The “why” of this remains hotly contested and unfortunately for everyone, the issues are pretty firmly coded “red” and “blue” making rational conversation difficult.
What’s “hotly contested” is whether disproportionate outcomes are due to 1)race or 2)racism.
Some “demographics” are over-represented on the unemployment rolls; others on corporate boards. Race? or racism?
I mention corporate boards because felonies like insider trading are almost exclusively perpetrated by white men. Race? Racism? Gender, perhaps?
We’ve gone around this several times over the years, McKinney. Can disparate outcomes be pure statistical flukes? If rational people (red or blue) agree that no, they’re too persistent to be a fluke, then rational people must consider causal hypotheses. One class of hypotheses is: the ‘underperforming’ “demographic” has some innate trait(s) that explain the outcome disparity on the “level playing field”. Another class of hypotheses is: the ‘overperforming’ “demographic” has managed to tilt the playing field in its favor.
I am not willing to dismiss either class of hypotheses out of hand, being a rational person and all. What I am willing to assert is that proximate causes are not sufficient explanation. If ‘unstable families’ characterize some “demographic” and this is proposed as the proximate cause of its ‘underperformance’, then we’re back to the original dilemma: is that handicap innate, or not?
For my part, I would not say that insider traders are almost exclusively white men due to some genetic proclivity to fraud in white men. Rather, I’d say: white men are more likely to find themselves in a position to trade insiderishly, the poor dears. And then I’d ask why that might be so.
Incidentally, McKinney, I do appreciate your response to my Liberty U question. It reminded me of something I vaguely recall, though. Sometime, long ago, an argument was floating around over whether a school accepting students with Pell grants was therefore accepting federal funding. Have you ever heard that? If so, was it ever judiciated?
–TP
McTx: A consequence of leveling the playing field was that, over time, different demographics (on a macro basis) outperformed other demographics in education and employment. The “why” of this remains hotly contested and unfortunately for everyone, the issues are pretty firmly coded “red” and “blue” making rational conversation difficult.
What’s “hotly contested” is whether disproportionate outcomes are due to 1)race or 2)racism.
Some “demographics” are over-represented on the unemployment rolls; others on corporate boards. Race? or racism?
I mention corporate boards because felonies like insider trading are almost exclusively perpetrated by white men. Race? Racism? Gender, perhaps?
We’ve gone around this several times over the years, McKinney. Can disparate outcomes be pure statistical flukes? If rational people (red or blue) agree that no, they’re too persistent to be a fluke, then rational people must consider causal hypotheses. One class of hypotheses is: the ‘underperforming’ “demographic” has some innate trait(s) that explain the outcome disparity on the “level playing field”. Another class of hypotheses is: the ‘overperforming’ “demographic” has managed to tilt the playing field in its favor.
I am not willing to dismiss either class of hypotheses out of hand, being a rational person and all. What I am willing to assert is that proximate causes are not sufficient explanation. If ‘unstable families’ characterize some “demographic” and this is proposed as the proximate cause of its ‘underperformance’, then we’re back to the original dilemma: is that handicap innate, or not?
For my part, I would not say that insider traders are almost exclusively white men due to some genetic proclivity to fraud in white men. Rather, I’d say: white men are more likely to find themselves in a position to trade insiderishly, the poor dears. And then I’d ask why that might be so.
Incidentally, McKinney, I do appreciate your response to my Liberty U question. It reminded me of something I vaguely recall, though. Sometime, long ago, an argument was floating around over whether a school accepting students with Pell grants was therefore accepting federal funding. Have you ever heard that? If so, was it ever judiciated?
–TP
The challenge today is, what that happens (even partially) on the web is interstate commerce? If Liberty has its admission forms online, and someone from another state uses that to enroll and pay admission/tuition, does that constitute “interstate commerce”?
I suspect there is an answer to this, but I don’t know it. If I was asked this question on a test, my guess would be “Yes, by implicitly soliciting across state lines, Liberty is engaged in interstate commerce.”
Can disparate outcomes be pure statistical flukes? If rational people (red or blue) agree that no, they’re too persistent to be a fluke, then rational people must consider causal hypotheses.
Ok, first we have to agree on what is meant by racism. That, all by itself, could keep us going for days. I’ve previously challenged the ObWi commentariat to provide a useful, working definition of racism. It’s damned difficult to do. If, as some contend, the US was founded on the principle of White Supremacy and its institutions and culture were and are shaped to perpetuate WS, then my first observation is: White People are pretty shitty at being supreme–look at all the POC’s who are getting traction, many of whom outperform WP.
Or, maybe we look at outcomes and infer that the “System” is OK with Asians, recent African immigrants, Pakistani’s, Jews, many Muslims, and likely others I’m leaving out, but not so much with 5-7th generation African Americans and Hispanics (a very wide swath of peoples, cultures, origins, etc. and who, ISTM, are much less focused on racism than African Americans). This seems like a very weirdly calibrated kind of systemic racism, almost incoherent, if that is what it is. In which case, “racism” becomes a real challenge to define, much less identify.
My approach, at least as an initial analytical step, is to ask: is there evidence that someone being excluded because of something arbitrary like race, ethnicity, culture, gender, etc.?
Another question I ask: what is the available pool of qualified candidates in the class of those believed to be the victims of racism/discrimination?
Something I’ve been meaning to try to do is find a good study that aggregates, over the last three decades (give or take), academic achievement scores by race, gender, state and city. For example, my sense is that DC has quite a large dollar:pupil ratio but that DC students lag materially behind their contemporaries in other school districts. I’m pretty sure I’m right about that and I’m also pretty sure that this phenomena is common in other large, urban districts. IOW, what percentage of African American children are leaving high school with enough of an actual education to compete in the market place above the entry level, service economy? And, the same question applied to every other identifiable ethnic group, by gender.
This is an indirect way of answering your “disparate outcome by race” question. A significant variable is the qualified pool of available people. That’s about as much as I can do at the moment due to the press of other matters.
It reminded me of something I vaguely recall, though. Sometime, long ago, an argument was floating around over whether a school accepting students with Pell grants was therefore accepting federal funding. Have you ever heard that? If so, was it ever judiciated?
I have the same vague recall and my very vague recollection–I could easily be wrong–is that a student’s use of federal funds to attend an otherwise private institution was too attenuated to trigger application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The challenge today is, what that happens (even partially) on the web is interstate commerce? If Liberty has its admission forms online, and someone from another state uses that to enroll and pay admission/tuition, does that constitute “interstate commerce”?
I suspect there is an answer to this, but I don’t know it. If I was asked this question on a test, my guess would be “Yes, by implicitly soliciting across state lines, Liberty is engaged in interstate commerce.”
Can disparate outcomes be pure statistical flukes? If rational people (red or blue) agree that no, they’re too persistent to be a fluke, then rational people must consider causal hypotheses.
Ok, first we have to agree on what is meant by racism. That, all by itself, could keep us going for days. I’ve previously challenged the ObWi commentariat to provide a useful, working definition of racism. It’s damned difficult to do. If, as some contend, the US was founded on the principle of White Supremacy and its institutions and culture were and are shaped to perpetuate WS, then my first observation is: White People are pretty shitty at being supreme–look at all the POC’s who are getting traction, many of whom outperform WP.
Or, maybe we look at outcomes and infer that the “System” is OK with Asians, recent African immigrants, Pakistani’s, Jews, many Muslims, and likely others I’m leaving out, but not so much with 5-7th generation African Americans and Hispanics (a very wide swath of peoples, cultures, origins, etc. and who, ISTM, are much less focused on racism than African Americans). This seems like a very weirdly calibrated kind of systemic racism, almost incoherent, if that is what it is. In which case, “racism” becomes a real challenge to define, much less identify.
My approach, at least as an initial analytical step, is to ask: is there evidence that someone being excluded because of something arbitrary like race, ethnicity, culture, gender, etc.?
Another question I ask: what is the available pool of qualified candidates in the class of those believed to be the victims of racism/discrimination?
Something I’ve been meaning to try to do is find a good study that aggregates, over the last three decades (give or take), academic achievement scores by race, gender, state and city. For example, my sense is that DC has quite a large dollar:pupil ratio but that DC students lag materially behind their contemporaries in other school districts. I’m pretty sure I’m right about that and I’m also pretty sure that this phenomena is common in other large, urban districts. IOW, what percentage of African American children are leaving high school with enough of an actual education to compete in the market place above the entry level, service economy? And, the same question applied to every other identifiable ethnic group, by gender.
This is an indirect way of answering your “disparate outcome by race” question. A significant variable is the qualified pool of available people. That’s about as much as I can do at the moment due to the press of other matters.
It reminded me of something I vaguely recall, though. Sometime, long ago, an argument was floating around over whether a school accepting students with Pell grants was therefore accepting federal funding. Have you ever heard that? If so, was it ever judiciated?
I have the same vague recall and my very vague recollection–I could easily be wrong–is that a student’s use of federal funds to attend an otherwise private institution was too attenuated to trigger application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
District of Columbia v. Heller struck down DC’s handgun regulations on the basis of long analysis of sources from the 18th century and before. NYSRPA v Bruen last year relied on the same analysis. Is this controversial?
The 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act was passed by Congress, overriding Jackson’s veto, shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you, McKT, arguing that Congress (with two-thirds majorities) passed a constitutional amendment to make the Act illegal, then passed the Act anyway?
District of Columbia v. Heller struck down DC’s handgun regulations on the basis of long analysis of sources from the 18th century and before. NYSRPA v Bruen last year relied on the same analysis. Is this controversial?
The 1866 Freedmen’s Bureau Act was passed by Congress, overriding Jackson’s veto, shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you, McKT, arguing that Congress (with two-thirds majorities) passed a constitutional amendment to make the Act illegal, then passed the Act anyway?
…maybe we look at outcomes and infer that the “System” is OK with Asians, recent African immigrants, Pakistani’s, Jews, many Muslims, and likely others I’m leaving out, but not so much with 5-7th generation African Americans…
What’s different about African Americans? Slavery. Dred Scott. Jim Crow. Redlining.
…maybe we look at outcomes and infer that the “System” is OK with Asians, recent African immigrants, Pakistani’s, Jews, many Muslims, and likely others I’m leaving out, but not so much with 5-7th generation African Americans…
What’s different about African Americans? Slavery. Dred Scott. Jim Crow. Redlining.
A significant variable is the qualified pool of available people.
I’m getting the sense that you missed what Tony meant in his mention of of proximate causes, McKinney.
A significant variable is the qualified pool of available people.
I’m getting the sense that you missed what Tony meant in his mention of of proximate causes, McKinney.
of, one more time, for the heck of it.
of, one more time, for the heck of it.
If outcome proves cause, then we’d have to agree that the country is somehow structured to favor Asians and Jews above all others.
No, we would not.
I’m sure McKinney would find this a bit “over the top” as it were, but the point remains. One measure of socio-economic status does not show the whole picture.
More here.
If outcome proves cause, then we’d have to agree that the country is somehow structured to favor Asians and Jews above all others.
No, we would not.
I’m sure McKinney would find this a bit “over the top” as it were, but the point remains. One measure of socio-economic status does not show the whole picture.
More here.
This is such a common occurrence that an entire body of law has built up over the centuries on “statutory construction”.
–McKinney intro to what “original intent” (LOL) really means.
Your task McKinney, if you chose to accept it, is to submit a 500 word essay on the statutory construction of John Roberts asserted principle of “equal sovereignty among the states” as expounded in the Shelby County decision defanging a critical section of the Voting Rights Act. Place your thesis in the context of the “original intent” of the 14th Amendment.
More good reading on this particular topic at LGM if interested.
This is such a common occurrence that an entire body of law has built up over the centuries on “statutory construction”.
–McKinney intro to what “original intent” (LOL) really means.
Your task McKinney, if you chose to accept it, is to submit a 500 word essay on the statutory construction of John Roberts asserted principle of “equal sovereignty among the states” as expounded in the Shelby County decision defanging a critical section of the Voting Rights Act. Place your thesis in the context of the “original intent” of the 14th Amendment.
More good reading on this particular topic at LGM if interested.
Or here as well:
https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-court-s-war-great-society/
Or here as well:
https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-court-s-war-great-society/
bobbyp: for Shelby County, pretty sure it’s the 15th Amendment that needs to be discussed.
Instead of completely disregarded as John “lawless” Roberts did.
bobbyp: for Shelby County, pretty sure it’s the 15th Amendment that needs to be discussed.
Instead of completely disregarded as John “lawless” Roberts did.
Snarki,
True ‘dat. However, the Roberts of the world assert “the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination” and broad brush public policies legislated to proactively end discrimination as inherently “discriminatory”….thus the reference to the 14th and the claim that “we’ve done enough”…itself hardly a conclusion that can in any way be based on “statutory construction”.
What we see here are the same arguments used by segregationist wrt poll taxes (“Well, golly gee, everybody has to pay, right? How more equal can you get?”).
Same song….different year.
Snarki,
True ‘dat. However, the Roberts of the world assert “the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination” and broad brush public policies legislated to proactively end discrimination as inherently “discriminatory”….thus the reference to the 14th and the claim that “we’ve done enough”…itself hardly a conclusion that can in any way be based on “statutory construction”.
What we see here are the same arguments used by segregationist wrt poll taxes (“Well, golly gee, everybody has to pay, right? How more equal can you get?”).
Same song….different year.
thus the reference to the 14th and the claim that “we’ve done enough”…itself hardly a conclusion that can in any way be based on “statutory construction”.
A claim that “we’ve done enough” can hardly be based on reality either. We can argue about what would be the most effective way to take the next step — and it’s even possible that something other than Affirmative Action might be more effective. But “done enough” isn’t really real in this.
thus the reference to the 14th and the claim that “we’ve done enough”…itself hardly a conclusion that can in any way be based on “statutory construction”.
A claim that “we’ve done enough” can hardly be based on reality either. We can argue about what would be the most effective way to take the next step — and it’s even possible that something other than Affirmative Action might be more effective. But “done enough” isn’t really real in this.
I’m getting the sense that you missed what Tony meant in his mention of of proximate causes, McKinney
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. TP appears to view the situation as binary: either limitations within the underperforming demographic–which no one contends–or a racially stacked deck. So, really, there is only one explanation: racism, and more specifically structural or systemic racism. The latter hypothesis is assumed/asserted by many, but to me it is, charitably speaking, unproven. And, for the purpose of constitutional law, mostly irrelevant.
One reason–not *the* reason–but one significant reason for the shortage of qualified students is how poorly African American communities are treated by the education systems in large cities, e.g. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Houston and so on. If you look at how poorly educated young black kids are these days compared to their contemporaries, it is no wonder that, in the aggregate, they lack the necessary preparation for and comfort in academically rigorous environments. Even outright quotas across the board will not erase the fundamental disadvantage of having been warehoused for 12 years instead of educated.
Now, back to SFFA, the 14th Amendment and “Originalism”–
The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 both outlaw any kind of racial discrimination. Brown v Board was the direct result of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment ended Jim Crow. The 14th Amendment does not say “only bad discrimination is not allowed”. It says “no denial of equal protection on account of race.”
We have a really large number of ethnicities in the US. No one group is allowed a state-aided or funded or interstate commerce-related advantage over another. The SCt bent that rule as a remedial device, all the while recognizing the conflict with the actual language of the 14th Amendment.
Now, let’s look at the Constitution, “originalism”, statutory construction and SFFA, with a side trip to Heller as illustrative.
The Constitution circumscribes the power of the state and creates fundamental rights in citizens–or more broadly, “the people”–that the state cannot impair without meeting certain, usually fairly stringent constitutional requirements, e.g. strict scrutiny. IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS AND IS ENFORCED AS WRITTEN AND FOR A GOOD REASON. Parenthetically, I think this is the first time I’ve ever used all caps while at ObWi.
Likewise, laws are written to mean what they say and to be enforced as written. In Heller, both the majority and the dissent focused on the drafters’ intent. The dissent did not argue “to bring the Constitution into the 21st Century.” There was no effort to modernize the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Justice Stevens, using historical context, tried to make the case that the 2nd Amendment preserved the States’ rights to have a militia independent of the federal government. IMO, that was a heavy lift and it failed.
Why are Constitutions, laws, contracts, etc. enforced as they are written? Because it gives the rest of us a reasonable opportunity to know what we can and cannot do, what our obligations are and are not and how we can act to conform ourselves to the requirements of laws, agreements, rules, etc. that are essential for a functioning civil society.
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
I’ll wrap this up by repeating: the over-reaction on the left and particularly the self-identified anti-racist left simply has it wrong. Nothing about SFFA will create racism where none exists. There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race and, in fact, as I have challenged others here many times: show me evidence of current, race-based exclusion anywhere in the US.
I’m getting the sense that you missed what Tony meant in his mention of of proximate causes, McKinney
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. TP appears to view the situation as binary: either limitations within the underperforming demographic–which no one contends–or a racially stacked deck. So, really, there is only one explanation: racism, and more specifically structural or systemic racism. The latter hypothesis is assumed/asserted by many, but to me it is, charitably speaking, unproven. And, for the purpose of constitutional law, mostly irrelevant.
One reason–not *the* reason–but one significant reason for the shortage of qualified students is how poorly African American communities are treated by the education systems in large cities, e.g. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Houston and so on. If you look at how poorly educated young black kids are these days compared to their contemporaries, it is no wonder that, in the aggregate, they lack the necessary preparation for and comfort in academically rigorous environments. Even outright quotas across the board will not erase the fundamental disadvantage of having been warehoused for 12 years instead of educated.
Now, back to SFFA, the 14th Amendment and “Originalism”–
The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 both outlaw any kind of racial discrimination. Brown v Board was the direct result of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment ended Jim Crow. The 14th Amendment does not say “only bad discrimination is not allowed”. It says “no denial of equal protection on account of race.”
We have a really large number of ethnicities in the US. No one group is allowed a state-aided or funded or interstate commerce-related advantage over another. The SCt bent that rule as a remedial device, all the while recognizing the conflict with the actual language of the 14th Amendment.
Now, let’s look at the Constitution, “originalism”, statutory construction and SFFA, with a side trip to Heller as illustrative.
The Constitution circumscribes the power of the state and creates fundamental rights in citizens–or more broadly, “the people”–that the state cannot impair without meeting certain, usually fairly stringent constitutional requirements, e.g. strict scrutiny. IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS AND IS ENFORCED AS WRITTEN AND FOR A GOOD REASON. Parenthetically, I think this is the first time I’ve ever used all caps while at ObWi.
Likewise, laws are written to mean what they say and to be enforced as written. In Heller, both the majority and the dissent focused on the drafters’ intent. The dissent did not argue “to bring the Constitution into the 21st Century.” There was no effort to modernize the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Justice Stevens, using historical context, tried to make the case that the 2nd Amendment preserved the States’ rights to have a militia independent of the federal government. IMO, that was a heavy lift and it failed.
Why are Constitutions, laws, contracts, etc. enforced as they are written? Because it gives the rest of us a reasonable opportunity to know what we can and cannot do, what our obligations are and are not and how we can act to conform ourselves to the requirements of laws, agreements, rules, etc. that are essential for a functioning civil society.
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
I’ll wrap this up by repeating: the over-reaction on the left and particularly the self-identified anti-racist left simply has it wrong. Nothing about SFFA will create racism where none exists. There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race and, in fact, as I have challenged others here many times: show me evidence of current, race-based exclusion anywhere in the US.
One reason–not *the* reason–but one significant reason for the shortage of qualified students is how poorly African American communities are treated by the education systems in large cities, e.g. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Houston and so on. If you look at how poorly educated young black kids are these days compared to their contemporaries, it is no wonder that, in the aggregate, they lack the necessary preparation for and comfort in academically rigorous environments. Even outright quotas across the board will not erase the fundamental disadvantage of having been warehoused for 12 years instead of educated.
You’re contradicting yourself, ISTM. What you describe above is an example of structural/systemic racism.
One reason–not *the* reason–but one significant reason for the shortage of qualified students is how poorly African American communities are treated by the education systems in large cities, e.g. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Houston and so on. If you look at how poorly educated young black kids are these days compared to their contemporaries, it is no wonder that, in the aggregate, they lack the necessary preparation for and comfort in academically rigorous environments. Even outright quotas across the board will not erase the fundamental disadvantage of having been warehoused for 12 years instead of educated.
You’re contradicting yourself, ISTM. What you describe above is an example of structural/systemic racism.
Take the paragraph hsh quoted. Then take this: There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race. Put them together and you get a McK triumph: no one will be excluded because of their race, they will be excluded because of other things that have shaped their whole lives because of their race, like crappy school districts. Neat trick, that! On so many levels.
show me evidence of current, race-based exclusion anywhere in the US.
Another typical McK rhetorical ploy: we have to provide evidence of something as framed by McKinney, or he wins. For the gazillionth time, this is a game not worth playing. But….
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein — on housing.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander — on incarceration.
I’m sure there are many other sources that people who read more widely can cite.
Take the paragraph hsh quoted. Then take this: There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race. Put them together and you get a McK triumph: no one will be excluded because of their race, they will be excluded because of other things that have shaped their whole lives because of their race, like crappy school districts. Neat trick, that! On so many levels.
show me evidence of current, race-based exclusion anywhere in the US.
Another typical McK rhetorical ploy: we have to provide evidence of something as framed by McKinney, or he wins. For the gazillionth time, this is a game not worth playing. But….
The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein — on housing.
The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander — on incarceration.
I’m sure there are many other sources that people who read more widely can cite.
Voter suppression.
Voter suppression.
Take the paragraph hsh quoted. Then take this: There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race. Put them together and you get a McK triumph: no one will be excluded because of their race, they will be excluded because of other things that have shaped their whole lives because of their race, like crappy school districts. Neat trick, that! On so many levels.
Just as an intellectual exercise, consider McKinney’s statement as an argument only against affirmative action at the university level. While accepting that there is a massive need for better education at the K-12 level. Think of it as directing attention to the root cause (educationally speaking), rather than trying to apply a patch later. Not to mention the benefit to all the kids who aren’t college bound.
Lots of stuff that could be done to improve outcomes. And not just at urban schools either. We should make that a priority. Starting with taking a look at how other countries manage to do so much better for so much less money per student. (Yes, nous, bloated administration is part of the problem. But, I would argue, only a part. Perhaps not ever the greatest part.)
Take the paragraph hsh quoted. Then take this: There will be no institutional uptick in excluding anyone because of their race. Put them together and you get a McK triumph: no one will be excluded because of their race, they will be excluded because of other things that have shaped their whole lives because of their race, like crappy school districts. Neat trick, that! On so many levels.
Just as an intellectual exercise, consider McKinney’s statement as an argument only against affirmative action at the university level. While accepting that there is a massive need for better education at the K-12 level. Think of it as directing attention to the root cause (educationally speaking), rather than trying to apply a patch later. Not to mention the benefit to all the kids who aren’t college bound.
Lots of stuff that could be done to improve outcomes. And not just at urban schools either. We should make that a priority. Starting with taking a look at how other countries manage to do so much better for so much less money per student. (Yes, nous, bloated administration is part of the problem. But, I would argue, only a part. Perhaps not ever the greatest part.)
Maternal and infant health.
Maternal and infant health.
wj – bloated administration is an issue at the post-secondary level, which you keep eliding with primary and secondary. They really are very different systems in structure and intent.
As far as why other countries are producing higher results with less money, I think the most obvious answer lies in a closer look at where the US is struggling. The *average* US student is below the *average* student from Canada, Finland, Japan, etc. in large part because the US has so many more poor school districts, and a much lower PISA equity score than the usual competitors. Doing a better job of mitigating the effects of poverty on children would lift scores overall. We are not failing all students, we are failing *poor* students. Our more well off students compare favorably with the rest of the world.
I’ve been trying to find a good distillation of this for PISA and OECD countries, but there is a dearth of good, middle ground analysis that is aimed at a lay audience, but that has granular analysis with actual data. We really need something like that middle ground.
And as far as bridging the gap between secondary and post-secondary education, I think the US would do well to focus on making adult education more accessible, with a focus on literacy, numeracy, and supporting those who have struggled in their early college educations, letting them slow down and take more time to get the basics without the pressure of a four-year timeframe for completion. Give them flex classes that provide transfer credit and that work with the scheduling pressures on the working poor.
wj – bloated administration is an issue at the post-secondary level, which you keep eliding with primary and secondary. They really are very different systems in structure and intent.
As far as why other countries are producing higher results with less money, I think the most obvious answer lies in a closer look at where the US is struggling. The *average* US student is below the *average* student from Canada, Finland, Japan, etc. in large part because the US has so many more poor school districts, and a much lower PISA equity score than the usual competitors. Doing a better job of mitigating the effects of poverty on children would lift scores overall. We are not failing all students, we are failing *poor* students. Our more well off students compare favorably with the rest of the world.
I’ve been trying to find a good distillation of this for PISA and OECD countries, but there is a dearth of good, middle ground analysis that is aimed at a lay audience, but that has granular analysis with actual data. We really need something like that middle ground.
And as far as bridging the gap between secondary and post-secondary education, I think the US would do well to focus on making adult education more accessible, with a focus on literacy, numeracy, and supporting those who have struggled in their early college educations, letting them slow down and take more time to get the basics without the pressure of a four-year timeframe for completion. Give them flex classes that provide transfer credit and that work with the scheduling pressures on the working poor.
McTX: TP appears to view the situation as binary: either limitations within the underperforming demographic–which no one contends–or a racially stacked deck.
So go ahead and describe the middle you think I’m excluding, McKinney.
I say disparate outcomes are either
1)due to some innate characteristic, or
2)NOT due to some innate characteristic
of the ‘underperforming’ “demographic”.
You assert that “no one contends” 1), which is sadly wrong. “No one here” may pass muster. So we (here) can discuss hypotheses that might explain the disparate outcomes, in light of 2) being common ground between us.
Hairshirt understood my distinction between “proximate causes” and … what shall we call them … root causes? You acknowledge that “perhaps” you didn’t. And then you seem to prove it, by proposing poor schooling as a “cause”. That’s pretty much equivalent to saying that the water in the kettle is boiling ‘because’ its temperature got high enough, and not bothering to ask why the temperature got so high. I’d ask that question, and maybe ask follow-up questions, if I wanted the water NOT to boil.
Anyway, on a different subject you write:
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
I bet you’ve heard the phrase “personnel is policy” but in case you haven’t, or do not agree with it, please tell me: does it matter who sits on “The” Supreme Court? I mean, “The” Supreme Court, like “The” Boston Red Sox, is in principle the same institution now as it was a century ago. Why do conservatives (and liberals too, but you don’t have to speak for them) care so much about staffing it? Why did McConnell stiff-arm Garland, and rush Coney Barret through, if not because McConnell knows perfectly well that “The Law” is not determined by the team uniform, but by which particular people are wearing it. “Balls and strikes my ass” Mitch might easily say, but not out loud, of course.
I have to add: I value “justice”, “equity”, “freedom”, and “liberty” at least as highly as I value “the rule of law”. Despite your profession, maybe you do too — though I dare say our definitions of those scare-quoted things may differ.
–TP
McTX: TP appears to view the situation as binary: either limitations within the underperforming demographic–which no one contends–or a racially stacked deck.
So go ahead and describe the middle you think I’m excluding, McKinney.
I say disparate outcomes are either
1)due to some innate characteristic, or
2)NOT due to some innate characteristic
of the ‘underperforming’ “demographic”.
You assert that “no one contends” 1), which is sadly wrong. “No one here” may pass muster. So we (here) can discuss hypotheses that might explain the disparate outcomes, in light of 2) being common ground between us.
Hairshirt understood my distinction between “proximate causes” and … what shall we call them … root causes? You acknowledge that “perhaps” you didn’t. And then you seem to prove it, by proposing poor schooling as a “cause”. That’s pretty much equivalent to saying that the water in the kettle is boiling ‘because’ its temperature got high enough, and not bothering to ask why the temperature got so high. I’d ask that question, and maybe ask follow-up questions, if I wanted the water NOT to boil.
Anyway, on a different subject you write:
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
I bet you’ve heard the phrase “personnel is policy” but in case you haven’t, or do not agree with it, please tell me: does it matter who sits on “The” Supreme Court? I mean, “The” Supreme Court, like “The” Boston Red Sox, is in principle the same institution now as it was a century ago. Why do conservatives (and liberals too, but you don’t have to speak for them) care so much about staffing it? Why did McConnell stiff-arm Garland, and rush Coney Barret through, if not because McConnell knows perfectly well that “The Law” is not determined by the team uniform, but by which particular people are wearing it. “Balls and strikes my ass” Mitch might easily say, but not out loud, of course.
I have to add: I value “justice”, “equity”, “freedom”, and “liberty” at least as highly as I value “the rule of law”. Despite your profession, maybe you do too — though I dare say our definitions of those scare-quoted things may differ.
–TP
The mention of valuing the rule of law above all else reminds me of this recent news
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230706/p2a/00m/0na/044000c
The mention of valuing the rule of law above all else reminds me of this recent news
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230706/p2a/00m/0na/044000c
lj — I might have more to say about this later on a more theoretical level, but it seems to me that regardless of what we think about dual citizenship, this woman was negligent in not informing herself more carefully when she became a Canadian citizen.
She had no idea what the law was in Japan and didn’t care enough to find out? No one in Canada who was involved in her path to citizenship, either her employer or some government functionary, informed her? That’s hard to believe. Or maybe she was like my long ago Harvard professor neighbor who had no idea how to start the lawn mower and couldn’t have cared less.
lj — I might have more to say about this later on a more theoretical level, but it seems to me that regardless of what we think about dual citizenship, this woman was negligent in not informing herself more carefully when she became a Canadian citizen.
She had no idea what the law was in Japan and didn’t care enough to find out? No one in Canada who was involved in her path to citizenship, either her employer or some government functionary, informed her? That’s hard to believe. Or maybe she was like my long ago Harvard professor neighbor who had no idea how to start the lawn mower and couldn’t have cared less.
She had no idea what the law was in Japan and didn’t care enough to find out? No one in Canada who was involved in her path to citizenship, either her employer or some government functionary, informed her?
I’m not sure I would fault her. At least to the point of saying that she “didn’t care enough” to find out. At a guess, a more likely gloss would be that it never occurred to her that there might be a problem. One of the greatest weaknesses of the “rule of law” is that there are so many laws, and of such complexity, that NOBODY can keep track of them all. (Even lawyers have to specialize. Never mind those of us in other lines of work.)
I will say that any government ought to include a mention, on its citizenship application, advising checking on the impact on existing citizenships. Considering some of the other warnings that governments feel it necessary to mandate, it doesn’t seem like a big ask.
She had no idea what the law was in Japan and didn’t care enough to find out? No one in Canada who was involved in her path to citizenship, either her employer or some government functionary, informed her?
I’m not sure I would fault her. At least to the point of saying that she “didn’t care enough” to find out. At a guess, a more likely gloss would be that it never occurred to her that there might be a problem. One of the greatest weaknesses of the “rule of law” is that there are so many laws, and of such complexity, that NOBODY can keep track of them all. (Even lawyers have to specialize. Never mind those of us in other lines of work.)
I will say that any government ought to include a mention, on its citizenship application, advising checking on the impact on existing citizenships. Considering some of the other warnings that governments feel it necessary to mandate, it doesn’t seem like a big ask.
wj — you’re right that there are a lot of laws, many of them obscure. But getting citizenship in a new country is not a minor or obscure enterprise. I guess I’m partly reacting to how aggrieved she seems, and/or other people seem on her behalf.
It’s not like this law is new or hidden, nor is it all that complex. Of course, maybe she does take some responsibility, and the press, or someone, is using this situation to push an agenda.
wj — you’re right that there are a lot of laws, many of them obscure. But getting citizenship in a new country is not a minor or obscure enterprise. I guess I’m partly reacting to how aggrieved she seems, and/or other people seem on her behalf.
It’s not like this law is new or hidden, nor is it all that complex. Of course, maybe she does take some responsibility, and the press, or someone, is using this situation to push an agenda.
this is a topic that is being kicked around here and that’s one of the opinions that comes up. While I think it is ultimately (in a rule of law sort of way) her fault, it points to some interesting problems.
First of all, she took Canadian citizenship in 2007, and if we think back to that time, it was pre-almost everything and it might have seemed like a bureaucratic requirement. I’m sure that the Canadian officials didn’t offer up anything, and it wasn’t something that was discussed. And one wouldn’t expect Canadian officials to know the ins and outs of Japanese law
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3213848/us-citizen-who-was-stripped-japanese-nationality-its-against-my-human-rights
“In my lawsuit, I am claiming that the government does not publicise the details of the law or the implications,” said 75-year-old Kondo. “In my case, I did not know that the law existed or that I would lose my Japanese nationality if I became a naturalised American.”
There’s a lot of Japanese legal stuff, but for discussion purposes here, that ‘rule of law’ idea suggests that you aren’t of a particular nationality because you can’t get that country’s passport. But poke at it a bit and you see how threadbare that is. About 65% of Americans don’t have a passport and maybe 40% have never had one. The whole Windrush scandal provides a similar example of that thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
Going back to Japan, there was a fascinating incident involving Renho Saito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renh%C5%8D
who became the first female leader of a Japanese political party. (The DPJ)
https://newbloommag.net/2016/09/14/renho-controversy/
Members of both the LDP, which was the party in power, and her party, jumped on her for this, with a lot of suggestions that she was some chinese sleeper agent. However, it was subsequently discovered that Kimi Onoda, a LDP firebrand, had failed to renounce her American citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimi_Onoda
A lot of this dates back to earlier legal frameworks which only assigned citizenship patrilineally. This was finally changed in 1985, but the system they have for organizing this is totally haphazard.
Here’s an interesting article, from 2003 about Japanese citizenship
https://sci-hub.se/10.1353/apr.2005.0030
and this has some portions of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations to the UN committee on the problems.
http://crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/res-cit.html
Anyway, interesting stuff.
this is a topic that is being kicked around here and that’s one of the opinions that comes up. While I think it is ultimately (in a rule of law sort of way) her fault, it points to some interesting problems.
First of all, she took Canadian citizenship in 2007, and if we think back to that time, it was pre-almost everything and it might have seemed like a bureaucratic requirement. I’m sure that the Canadian officials didn’t offer up anything, and it wasn’t something that was discussed. And one wouldn’t expect Canadian officials to know the ins and outs of Japanese law
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3213848/us-citizen-who-was-stripped-japanese-nationality-its-against-my-human-rights
“In my lawsuit, I am claiming that the government does not publicise the details of the law or the implications,” said 75-year-old Kondo. “In my case, I did not know that the law existed or that I would lose my Japanese nationality if I became a naturalised American.”
There’s a lot of Japanese legal stuff, but for discussion purposes here, that ‘rule of law’ idea suggests that you aren’t of a particular nationality because you can’t get that country’s passport. But poke at it a bit and you see how threadbare that is. About 65% of Americans don’t have a passport and maybe 40% have never had one. The whole Windrush scandal provides a similar example of that thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
Going back to Japan, there was a fascinating incident involving Renho Saito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renh%C5%8D
who became the first female leader of a Japanese political party. (The DPJ)
https://newbloommag.net/2016/09/14/renho-controversy/
Members of both the LDP, which was the party in power, and her party, jumped on her for this, with a lot of suggestions that she was some chinese sleeper agent. However, it was subsequently discovered that Kimi Onoda, a LDP firebrand, had failed to renounce her American citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimi_Onoda
A lot of this dates back to earlier legal frameworks which only assigned citizenship patrilineally. This was finally changed in 1985, but the system they have for organizing this is totally haphazard.
Here’s an interesting article, from 2003 about Japanese citizenship
https://sci-hub.se/10.1353/apr.2005.0030
and this has some portions of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations to the UN committee on the problems.
http://crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/res-cit.html
Anyway, interesting stuff.
Thanks, lj. THe fleshing out of a lot of aspects is interesting.
Thanks, lj. THe fleshing out of a lot of aspects is interesting.
I suspect that a lot of Americans, whether they support ir deplore it, are so accustomed to our routine naturalization of immigrants that they have no clue just how draconian (or impossible) the rules regarding gaining citizenship are in other countries.
It also occurs to me to wonder how, when citizenship was strictly patrilineal, Japan established who the father actually was. I mean, routine DNA testing wasn’t available. So, how could they be sure? (How sensible of Jewish law to decide matrilineally. Much more obvious, back in the day, who the mother was.)
I suspect that a lot of Americans, whether they support ir deplore it, are so accustomed to our routine naturalization of immigrants that they have no clue just how draconian (or impossible) the rules regarding gaining citizenship are in other countries.
It also occurs to me to wonder how, when citizenship was strictly patrilineal, Japan established who the father actually was. I mean, routine DNA testing wasn’t available. So, how could they be sure? (How sensible of Jewish law to decide matrilineally. Much more obvious, back in the day, who the mother was.)
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
That’s funny…really a howler. Sad that it is coming from somebody who apparenty practices law? (the claim about orginalism and Heller was particulary egregious).
Please explain the “rule of Law” and/or “orginialism” as it applies to, well to take a couple examples:
Bush v. Gore
Shelby County v. Holder
West Virginia v. EPA
Janus v. ASFME
I, for one, find all this high falutin’ talk about “the Law” to be a distraction. The Court has alway been a political enterprise (since John Marshal). Currently, the conservative super majority can just pull it out of their ass and invoke “originalism” as needed, or not. So that’s what they do.
The Warren Court was an all too brief respite from the reactionary Courts that have characterized our history.
To argue otherwise is to simply reveal your partisan preferences.
I’m ok with partisan preferences, but when you invoke “the LAW” I simply laugh. You are not arguing from high legal principle, you are making it up.
If the law could be ignored or “construed” to mean something other than what is says because “justice” or “equity” or “freedom” or “liberty” supersedes the written word, then you no longer have the rule of law, but the “rule of man”, a situation in which the rules change or are made up as we go.
That’s funny…really a howler. Sad that it is coming from somebody who apparenty practices law? (the claim about orginalism and Heller was particulary egregious).
Please explain the “rule of Law” and/or “orginialism” as it applies to, well to take a couple examples:
Bush v. Gore
Shelby County v. Holder
West Virginia v. EPA
Janus v. ASFME
I, for one, find all this high falutin’ talk about “the Law” to be a distraction. The Court has alway been a political enterprise (since John Marshal). Currently, the conservative super majority can just pull it out of their ass and invoke “originalism” as needed, or not. So that’s what they do.
The Warren Court was an all too brief respite from the reactionary Courts that have characterized our history.
To argue otherwise is to simply reveal your partisan preferences.
I’m ok with partisan preferences, but when you invoke “the LAW” I simply laugh. You are not arguing from high legal principle, you are making it up.
The Roberts Court has been a reactionary enterprise from stem to stern. A brief review:
https://prospect.org/justice/five-worst-roberts-court-rulings/
This is just scratching the surface. This Count is an abomination. Alas, our deeply divided polity and the many check points in our political system lead to the ability of the Court to assume way too much power.
Just another reason to never, ever, vote for a GOP candidate at any level (cue wj).
Enjoy the summer.
The Roberts Court has been a reactionary enterprise from stem to stern. A brief review:
https://prospect.org/justice/five-worst-roberts-court-rulings/
This is just scratching the surface. This Count is an abomination. Alas, our deeply divided polity and the many check points in our political system lead to the ability of the Court to assume way too much power.
Just another reason to never, ever, vote for a GOP candidate at any level (cue wj).
Enjoy the summer.
The Stevens dissent in Heller:
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/stevens-j-dissenting-the-legacy-of-heller/
Devastating. Powerful. Correct. Don’t be bulldozed by right wing propaganda.
The Stevens dissent in Heller:
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/stevens-j-dissenting-the-legacy-of-heller/
Devastating. Powerful. Correct. Don’t be bulldozed by right wing propaganda.
Just another reason to never, ever, vote for a GOP candidate at any level (cue wj).
Dutifully stepping up.
I have to take issue with the “at any level” bit. At the moment, I wouldn’t disagree at the Federal level. (Save those places with either top two or ranked choice voting. There, it might be necessary to vote for “less bad” candidates, in order to block worse alternatives.)
But at the state or local level? There one will, occasionally, find GOP candidates who are sane and sensible folks. Not, certainly, in agreement with you or some of the more progressive folks here, but not reactionary or insane either. Having some of those win, while defeating the crazies, is the only path to returning the GOP to sanity. Which is arguably a low probability course, but far more feasible the establishing a new second party.
Just another reason to never, ever, vote for a GOP candidate at any level (cue wj).
Dutifully stepping up.
I have to take issue with the “at any level” bit. At the moment, I wouldn’t disagree at the Federal level. (Save those places with either top two or ranked choice voting. There, it might be necessary to vote for “less bad” candidates, in order to block worse alternatives.)
But at the state or local level? There one will, occasionally, find GOP candidates who are sane and sensible folks. Not, certainly, in agreement with you or some of the more progressive folks here, but not reactionary or insane either. Having some of those win, while defeating the crazies, is the only path to returning the GOP to sanity. Which is arguably a low probability course, but far more feasible the establishing a new second party.
The Stevens dissent in Heller.
…
Devastating. Powerful. Correct.
All of that. Heller ranks with Citizens United as the most daft IMO that the Court has issued this century. Admittedly, there are numerous, and rapidly proliferating, other candidates. But still, near the top for innovation and creativity in pursuit of a ridiculous, predetermined, result.
The Stevens dissent in Heller.
…
Devastating. Powerful. Correct.
All of that. Heller ranks with Citizens United as the most daft IMO that the Court has issued this century. Admittedly, there are numerous, and rapidly proliferating, other candidates. But still, near the top for innovation and creativity in pursuit of a ridiculous, predetermined, result.
It also occurs to me to wonder how, when citizenship was strictly patrilineal, Japan established who the father actually was. I mean, routine DNA testing wasn’t available.
Well, one way to look at it is that it was that way _because_ DNA testing wasn’t available. The rich could deal with the out of wedlock pregnancy with some sort of sleight of hand, the poor couldn’t. Of course, the issue of citizenship only affects a tiny handful of people until you have a lot of GI-Japanese liaisons and children born to those Japanese women where the father disappears.
Another interesting aspect of Japanese citizenship is that it is based on the koseki tohon (family register). An edited book with lots of information is Japan’s household registration system and citizenship.
It also occurs to me to wonder how, when citizenship was strictly patrilineal, Japan established who the father actually was. I mean, routine DNA testing wasn’t available.
Well, one way to look at it is that it was that way _because_ DNA testing wasn’t available. The rich could deal with the out of wedlock pregnancy with some sort of sleight of hand, the poor couldn’t. Of course, the issue of citizenship only affects a tiny handful of people until you have a lot of GI-Japanese liaisons and children born to those Japanese women where the father disappears.
Another interesting aspect of Japanese citizenship is that it is based on the koseki tohon (family register). An edited book with lots of information is Japan’s household registration system and citizenship.
On the general subject of the consequences of the SCOTUS’s activism, I referred recently to the Indiana doctor who had been targeted by the right for performing an abortion on a 10 year old rape victim. This piece gives more detail of how she has been persecuted, but I thought this paragraph was particularly worthy of inclusion here:
Free speech has become politicized in America, a rhetorical tick used to shield huge swaths of rightwing speech and conduct from social sanction or legal review. To read most pundits, you’d think that a free speech violation was something that happened only when a tenured professor got yelled at for embracing race science; if you ask the supreme court, a free speech violation is what happens when a business is required by law to serve gay couples the same way it serves straight ones. But the right is increasingly mounting its own attacks on freedom of expression and they are targeting those who espouse gender liberation – especially feminists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/indiana-abortion-doctor-10-year-old-child-rape
On the general subject of the consequences of the SCOTUS’s activism, I referred recently to the Indiana doctor who had been targeted by the right for performing an abortion on a 10 year old rape victim. This piece gives more detail of how she has been persecuted, but I thought this paragraph was particularly worthy of inclusion here:
Free speech has become politicized in America, a rhetorical tick used to shield huge swaths of rightwing speech and conduct from social sanction or legal review. To read most pundits, you’d think that a free speech violation was something that happened only when a tenured professor got yelled at for embracing race science; if you ask the supreme court, a free speech violation is what happens when a business is required by law to serve gay couples the same way it serves straight ones. But the right is increasingly mounting its own attacks on freedom of expression and they are targeting those who espouse gender liberation – especially feminists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/indiana-abortion-doctor-10-year-old-child-rape
Balls and strikes my ass
Indeed. How can anyone look at the votes in Bush v Gore and imagine that the Justices were calling balls and strikes uninfluenced by their political views?
Or read the majority opinion in the recent student loan forgiveness case, marvelling at its convoluted reasoning to make “waive or modify” mean something other than “waive or modify”.
The six far-right Justices know what they’re there for – to feed the rich, and to further the interests of the Republican Party which put them there. And Thomas and Alito expect the rich to feed them in return.
Balls and strikes my ass
Indeed. How can anyone look at the votes in Bush v Gore and imagine that the Justices were calling balls and strikes uninfluenced by their political views?
Or read the majority opinion in the recent student loan forgiveness case, marvelling at its convoluted reasoning to make “waive or modify” mean something other than “waive or modify”.
The six far-right Justices know what they’re there for – to feed the rich, and to further the interests of the Republican Party which put them there. And Thomas and Alito expect the rich to feed them in return.
Yes. McKinney’s formulation is that of a decent man, and an honourable lawyer, desperately restating what he was taught, and what he wishes to believe is still the case. The majority on the current SCOTUS is a nest of partisanship and corruption, and as Pro Bono says, the rot set in well before now. I cannot say what the ethical status of its past incarnations has been throughout its history, but it serves now as a monument to decay masked by dignified robes.
Yes. McKinney’s formulation is that of a decent man, and an honourable lawyer, desperately restating what he was taught, and what he wishes to believe is still the case. The majority on the current SCOTUS is a nest of partisanship and corruption, and as Pro Bono says, the rot set in well before now. I cannot say what the ethical status of its past incarnations has been throughout its history, but it serves now as a monument to decay masked by dignified robes.
The only thing “orginalist” about the decision in SFFA v. Harvard is the attempt to stand history on its head to obtain a desired political outcome.
Pure. Unmitigated. Bullshit.
The only thing “orginalist” about the decision in SFFA v. Harvard is the attempt to stand history on its head to obtain a desired political outcome.
Pure. Unmitigated. Bullshit.
link: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/07/the-bullshit-originalist-case-against-affirmative-action
link: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/07/the-bullshit-originalist-case-against-affirmative-action
Having some of those win, while defeating the crazies, is the only path to returning the GOP to sanity.
No. It is not the “only way”. Look at history.
Did voting for “good Whigs” save their party?
Rest assured if the GOP was made irrelevant, there would be a “conservative” party that would form to replace it. This is a direct result of our past-the-post elections, and the current Constitutional order. All things remaining equal, there will always only be two major political parties.
Plumping for “good” Republicans acts only to give this reactionary party (i.e., the institution) more breathing room. It is a self-refuting exercise in not so good political analysis.
Present company accepted, of course!
Having some of those win, while defeating the crazies, is the only path to returning the GOP to sanity.
No. It is not the “only way”. Look at history.
Did voting for “good Whigs” save their party?
Rest assured if the GOP was made irrelevant, there would be a “conservative” party that would form to replace it. This is a direct result of our past-the-post elections, and the current Constitutional order. All things remaining equal, there will always only be two major political parties.
Plumping for “good” Republicans acts only to give this reactionary party (i.e., the institution) more breathing room. It is a self-refuting exercise in not so good political analysis.
Present company accepted, of course!
No. It is not the “only way”. Look at history.
Did voting for “good Whigs” save their party?
Rest assured if the GOP was made irrelevant, there would be a “conservative” party that would form to replace it.
Somehow, I am not reassured. Possibly because I live in California, where the GOP has been irrelevant for decades. Is there any sign of a replacement? No.
We were forced to go to top-two primaries, just so the majority who are not Democrats could have some say in our elections. Just FYI, the general elections mostly come down to two Democrats. With, more often than not, the more liberal losing to the more moderate. (That’s how an empty suit like Newsom gets elected.)
No. It is not the “only way”. Look at history.
Did voting for “good Whigs” save their party?
Rest assured if the GOP was made irrelevant, there would be a “conservative” party that would form to replace it.
Somehow, I am not reassured. Possibly because I live in California, where the GOP has been irrelevant for decades. Is there any sign of a replacement? No.
We were forced to go to top-two primaries, just so the majority who are not Democrats could have some say in our elections. Just FYI, the general elections mostly come down to two Democrats. With, more often than not, the more liberal losing to the more moderate. (That’s how an empty suit like Newsom gets elected.)
Somehow, I am not reassured. Possibly because I live in California, where the GOP has been irrelevant for decades. Is there any sign of a replacement? No.
I think this is a product of party finance. There is no CA GOP because the donor base is national. If the CA GOP had to survive on local money and local interests it would have been forced to moderate itself to survive.
Super PACs make it really difficult to have anything other than a national policy. In the case of the GOP that nation is an entirely mythical “Heartland.” The CA GOP faithful are fighting for Heartland, not for CA.
Go to any gun board and you hear this discussed openly.
If the national party were to erode too far and hit its tipping point, though, there would have to be a new consolidation on the right – probably after a brief period of warring paradigms. We can already see what that might look like with Peter Thiel’s activism.
Somehow, I am not reassured. Possibly because I live in California, where the GOP has been irrelevant for decades. Is there any sign of a replacement? No.
I think this is a product of party finance. There is no CA GOP because the donor base is national. If the CA GOP had to survive on local money and local interests it would have been forced to moderate itself to survive.
Super PACs make it really difficult to have anything other than a national policy. In the case of the GOP that nation is an entirely mythical “Heartland.” The CA GOP faithful are fighting for Heartland, not for CA.
Go to any gun board and you hear this discussed openly.
If the national party were to erode too far and hit its tipping point, though, there would have to be a new consolidation on the right – probably after a brief period of warring paradigms. We can already see what that might look like with Peter Thiel’s activism.
Today’s novelty: nous the optimist and me the pessimist.
But I take your point. Although I do wonder if the same phenomena (outside finance) might prolong the persistence of the national GOP in its current form. Places like Saudi Arabia and Russia, among others, have both funds and (different) vested interests in maintaining it.
Today’s novelty: nous the optimist and me the pessimist.
But I take your point. Although I do wonder if the same phenomena (outside finance) might prolong the persistence of the national GOP in its current form. Places like Saudi Arabia and Russia, among others, have both funds and (different) vested interests in maintaining it.
Aaand: questions around Clarence Thomas, money, and people involved in cases before the SCOTUS continue to emerge:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court
Aaand: questions around Clarence Thomas, money, and people involved in cases before the SCOTUS continue to emerge:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court