The Supremes are eager to make some law:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a major case on affirmative action in higher education, adding another potential blockbuster to a docket already studded with them.
The court’s decision in the new case holds the potential to undo an accommodation reached in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger: that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to boost minority enrollment but could take race into account in vaguer ways to ensure academic diversity.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion in Grutter, said the accommodation was meant to last 25 years.
The court’s membership has changed since 2003, most notably for these purposes with the appointment of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who replaced Justice O’Connor in 2006. Justice Alito has voted with the court’s more conservative justices in decisions hostile to the use of racial classifications by the government.
“There thus seem five votes — Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito — to overrule Grutter and hold that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in a recent book, “The Conservative Assault on the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, this is happening:
In a political system where even the most trivial issues trigger partisan rancor, the Voting Rights Act has stood for several decades as a rare point of bipartisan consensus.
Until now.
An intensifying conservative legal assault on the Voting Rights Act could precipitate what many civil rights advocates regard as the nuclear option: a court ruling striking down one of the core elements of the landmark 1965 law guaranteeing African Americans and other minorities access to the ballot box.
At the same time, the view that states should have free rein to change their election laws even in places with a history of Jim Crow seems to be gaining traction within the Republican Party.
“There certainly has been a major change,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California at Irvine. “Now, you have a whole bunch of credible mainstream state attorneys general and governors taking this view. … That would have been unheard of even five years ago. You would have been accused of being a racist.”
It’s all just them getting warmed up for the big prize- Roe v. Wade.
S. cerevisiae
But but but..ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!
edit-typo
scav
Imagine that. Reality plays for real issues. Go figure.
Culture of Truth
Blockbuster opinions!
The Dangerman
I doubt Roe v. Wade is overturned; the Pro-Life crowd will have finally grabbed the brass ring and could get off the Merry-Go-Round, while the shitstorm from the majority Pro-Choice crowd would be too much for them to risk.
kindness
I think the theocons are aiming higher than Roe v Wade. I think they are aiming to take on contraception in total.
Theocons gotta force others to their will. That’s what their god tells them to do.
Poopyman
How is Roe v. Wade a bigger prize than legalizing voter disenfranchisement?
cathyx
I blame Sandra Day O’Connor for all of this. Starting with voting for Bush in 2000.
Paul in KY
I was afraid our side wouldn’t be properly riled up come November.
I don’t fear that anymore :-)
Napoleon
I think they are going to gut the Voting Rights Act. They don’t even try to mask who they are anymore. They want a Potemkin democracy and they are going to do everything they can to get it.
JGabriel
John Cole @ Top:
Maybe not. That’s not to say that the Supreme Court’s conservative wing doesn’t want to go there. It’s that, from a conservative’s point of view, killing the Voting Rights Act is probably a bigger prize.
After all, once they overturn Roe V. Wade, Republicans are gonna need a way to keep all those pissed off women from voting against them. The New GOP Motto will be — Vote Suppresion: It’s Not Just For Blacks & Hispanics Anymore.
.
cathyx
If we keep taking steps backwards, we’ll be allowed to own slaves in a few years.
trollhattan
@The Dangerman:
I wish I had your…I’ll call it optimism. Even if RvW is the biggest pelt in furcoatland, the list of Republican complaints is so vast it wraps around the globe. They’ll never run out of things to whinge and raise campaign cash over.
Alex S.
@cathyx:
and then retiring to make room for Alito…
scav
@cathyx: And our LLC brethren can’t already?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
This is about keeping rich white men in power. It’s all about keeping rich white men in power.
Brachiator
Affirmative Action is as much a prize to be captured as Roe v Wade. Women and nonwhites must both be put in their place.
@The Dangerman:
If the GOP win in November, Roe will be attacked by executive orders and the ongoing efforts of conservative states to undermine reproductive freedom.
@Paul in KY:
I think you may be very right, here.
justawriter
Five years ago, being (an overt) racist was a bad thing even for a Republican. However, for today’s Republican Party it is a prerequisite.
cathyx
@Alex S.: Not just retiring, but retiring on Bush’s watch.
jrg
Yay, an AA discussion! This is probably the only chance I’ll get this month to see otherwise reasonable people on this site claim that making decisions not based on race is actually racist. Whee!
gypsy howell
Hell, why stop at Roe v Wade- why not go for the whole megilla – the 14th and 19th amendments. That should take care of all us uppity women and n*****z.
Alex S.
@Poopyman:
I agree. I’d even say that the biggest prize is the Civil Rights Act.
Mino
@cathyx: Just what do you think the prison industry is aiming at?
Culture of Truth
I would say it’s like a chicken/egg thing. Voter disenfranchisement is an awesome weapon, but it’s ony a tool to achieve concrete goals. One of the big goals being overturning Roe.
Xecky Gilchrist
@cathyx: Not just retiring, but retiring on Bush’s watch.
And THEN, after voting him into office and retiring on his watch, going off to piss and moan about encroaching fascism.
kerFuFFler
I think that the way the recent redistricting map in Texas had been drawn up by the locals to disenfranchise minorities makes it abundantly clear why the federal government still needs to be involved in protecting minority rights.
We may need to start planning a big march right now. Kay is right. Showing up is hugely important.
patroclus
Justice Kagan is recusing herself, so there will only be 8 Justices on this case. The key – obviously – is Justice Kennedy, who seems likely to go along with Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts on the holding, but not likelt their reasoning. I predict a 4-3-1 vote – the 4’s opinion will be broad, but Kennedy’s concurrence will limit (somewhat) its broad impact until reconsideration by the full court in a different case. So, bye-bye to the UT-Austin affirmative action program, but not necessarily to all affirmative action programs.
The Dangerman
@Brachiator:
Roe will always be attacked, but (and I could be delusional, but YMMV) it will likely never be overturned. I don’t know the numbers, but there’s a shit-ton of Republican voters – men as well as women – that take a long walk if it’s overturned. Unless the game is rigged via Diebold or suppression, Roe’s going to stay in place.
Librarian
Actually, the big prizes are not just Roe v. Wade, or civil rights laws, but declaring Social Security and other social programs unconstitutional. Think they won’t dare try? Think again.
Culture of Truth
I’m riled.
dead existentialist
I hear that South America is coming back in style . . . .
scav
Religious Test Act.
16732012.Mino
I think there are grounds to impeach Clarence Thomas. A fitting tit for tat if they try it.
buggy ding dong
Short term pain (lots of it), long term gain.
The GOP is, more and more, showing their true face. These have been great issues on the margins to whip up their base, but they are terrible policies to actually enact, which will have acutal electoral consequences for them.
As long as women theoretically have the right to choose (of Texas’ 254 counties I believe the number where abortion is provided is 6) there are about 10-15 percent of women voting Republican who will continue to do so. Actually get rid of it, and that gets cut in half. At least.
Want to boost minority turnout over the long haul? Do this type of shit.
Again, the wussidom of Democrats is always bailed out by the GOP doing what they actually believe.
rea
They don’t have the votes to kill Roe, unless Kennedy changes his mind about his vote in Casey, which his ego won’t allow.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@jrg: I would love to live in a country where the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action programs were not needed. We currently don’t live in that country. Witness not only the makeup of Congress, and CEOs, but the fact that minorities are more likely to be pulled over, arrested, and convicted than whites.
trollhattan
@Mino:
IC what U did there.
stratplayer
The right justifies all this, of course, by invoking the cause of “liberty.” Anyone who believes, however, that this effort to revive and consolidate conservative, propertied, white, male, heterosexual Christian power and authority is going to usher in a glorious new era of freedom for all is sadly deluded. Most of us will be far less free if the right succeeds in implementing their “liberty” agenda. I am so bloody sick of the way they abuse that word.
Legalize
The biggest prize of all is the repeal of the 14th Amendment. They’ve talked about this.
Basilisc
See, Republicans used to support the voting rights act for cynical political reasons. That was the position of Henry “youthful indiscretion at 43” Hyde, and before him of Howard “make the Dems into the negro party” Philips.
It meant that black voters would be crammed into “majority-minority” districts, rather than providing the swing votes to help Democrats win in marginal districts. The result was that the only Democratic congresspeople from the South would be African-American with ultra-safe seats, while all the rest of the districts became safe Republican seats. It was a key story in the transformation of the South into a GOP fiefdom, and of the GOP into the Confederate party.
But that’s old news. That was back in an archaic America, one where majority rule still kind of mattered. In the new, Karl Rove, tea party America, you don’t concede majority rule. You change the rules. You stop people from voting altogether.
The VRA has served its tactical purpose, namely ghettoizing southern blacks into the Democratic party and converting southern whites into Republicans. Now it’s time to finish the job by ending that little 50-year experiment in southern black voting altogether. And while you’re at it, keep as many of those undesirable voters (black people, poor people, latinos) as you can away from the polls in the North. And what do you know – here’s a supreme court majority just itching to help them do it.
joeyess
This is rapidly becoming a country that I no longer recognize. This new breed of “conservatives” are hurtling toward the rightward abyss while firmly clutching the nation’s ballsack in their collective boney fingers.
I don’t think this is in anyone’s power to reverse. Short of Kennedy resigning or dying in his bed, I feel we’re all going down into the darkness.
What the hell is going on here?
WaterGirl
On what grounds did Kagan recuse herself?
bemused
OMG. The rightwing group, Minnesota Majority has a website pushing for voter ID law, WeWantVoterID.com which had an online banner that reads “Watch How Easy It Is To Cheat In Minnesota’s Elections”. There are 5 characters on the banner, one is an African-American dressed in a black & white striped prison suit and another is a person dressed in a mariachi costume.
TakeAction Minnesota had a press conference condemning the banner. MM took down that banner from the website and replaced the two characters with one young women dressed in a t-shirt with what looks like a maple leaf on it. As CityPages Blotter Blog described it: “Gone is the black felon, in his place now stands a Canadian valley girl”.
joeyess
@kindness:
Heading for The Handmaid’s Tale?
joel hanes
Roe is not the big prize.
They really want to overturn Griswold, which established the right to privacy on which Roe is founded.
jrg
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): And AA helps in which of those instances, precisely?
Two wrongs don’t make a right. You’re not going to fix injustices in one case by bending the rules to help minorities in others.
Brachiator
@The Dangerman:
It doesn’t matter whether the Court overturns Roe if it is gutted by state legislatures and at the executive level by a President Santorum or compliant President Romney or Gingrich.
@Legalize:
Good point. Seems that there is not a sngle biggest prize, but a number of objectives that the wingnuts want to capture or overturn.
Paul in KY
@Basilisc: District creation/boundary redrawing is done by state legislatures. We would have to get majority Democrats into those state houses & then convince the black Democratic US congressman to allow his/her very safe seat to be carved up so a bunch of presumably white Democrats can be elected.
It can be done, but it’s gonna take time.
Some Loser
@jrg: Good thing Affirmative Action is not an injustice.
cmorenc
@The Dangerman:
If they don’t explicitly overturn it, I’ll be eager to hear the five male troglodytes explain how the mandatory vaginal ultrasound in the prospective Virginia law doesn’t constitute both an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose in the first trimester, and an unconstitutionally intrusive “search” under the fourth amendment.
cmorenc
@Legalize:
The conservatives have a deep, unintended problem if they try to repeal the 14th Amendment: it’s the deliberate misconstruing of who is a “person” under that Amendment that underpins the Citizens United holding that corporations are persons holding 1st Amendment speech protections in their own right as “persons”, and not merely indirectly through First Amendment rights of e.g. shareholders.
Basilisc
@Paul in KY: True, but a big part of the VRA (I think) is that the Dept of Justice needs to approve districts to make sure they guarantee minority representation. Once the VRA is gone, the Republican legislatures can gerrymander the seats however they want, and the increasingly Republican judiciary will watch them do it.
28 Percent
Demographically, they’re coming up on their last chance ever to go for broke on culture wars issues, so they’re doing it.
Everything you see happen in the next ten years, keep in mind that the objective isn’t to win any future elections, it’s to lock in as much policy as they can before they go down in a long string of demographically-fueled defeats.
jrg
@Some Loser: I’ve wasted enough time arguing this point in other BJ threads. I’m not going to waste my day doing it here.
If you seriously can’t understand why it’s wrong to judge applicants based on race or a racial quota, there really is no sense arguing with you. It’s wrong. Period… And if the result were that black applicants were harmed, rather than helped, every one of you people supporting it would reverse your position. Every. Single. One.
But whatever. I don’t really care. I’ll do fine, regardless. I guess the rest of you will just have to learn the hard way that using the government to bend the rules when you can’t compete doesn’t help your cause.
handsmile
On this morning’s Open Thread, I speculatively raised the point that part of the Republican Party’s “long game” is to seek repeal of the 19th Amendment.
Crazy, you say? Rih Santorum leading a national poll, I reply. Impossible, you say? Arguing about access and use of contraceptives in 2012, I respond. Given the national campaign of voter disenfranchisement being conducted by the GOP at the state level, does anyone really feel confident about what the limits of that assault will be?
Also, this cues my role of Cassandra here to utter that however sanguine we may be about Obama’s reelection prospects against any of the current GOP candidates, the Democrats must defend 23 seats (including Lieberman) in the Senate to maintain their majority (currently 51-2-47).
The thought of Chuck Grassley wielding the gavel of a Republican-majority Judiciary Committee that will be voting on Obama’s Supreme Court and other judicial nominees is all the “riled up” I need. For with a perhaps fatally feeble presidential nominee this year, winning the Senate would be a most golden second prize for the GOP.
TBogg
To be fair, Affirmative Action gave us Clarence Thomas. Maybe those opposing AA will use him as an example. Hilarious Supreme Court hijinks to follow…
The Dangerman
@Brachiator:
No real disagreement; by your measure, Roe’s already gutted where there are no abortion providers. I’m limiting my argument to Roe getting overturned at the USSC; just isn’t likely to happen (and, perhaps, for the very reasons you stated; it’s already being effectively nullified in many parts of the country).
I take the long view here; change IS happening (and there won’t be a President Santorum or Romney or Gingrich) even if it’s too slow (and slow change is built into the system, sad to say). It wasn’t that long ago (2004) that Gay Marriage swung an election; now, such a tactic just wouldn’t work. Republicans have a problem in that a disproportionate number of their voters won’t be voting much longer (cause they’ll be dead). Some of this shit is just death throes…
cmorenc
@Librarian:
The right-wing SCOTUS justices wouldn’t go about it in any sort of abruptly direct way, but rather by incrementally hamstringing the leeway permitted the federal government under the commerce clause and administrative law, until the ability of the federal government to effectively enforce e.g. environmental laws will be honeycombed with judicially created exceptions and limitations. They may well simply confidently defer to the political process under the new radical-right governmental climate to whittle away social security, knowing that the firestorm that would result in any judicial attempt to disallow it would be so broad and intense as to seriously threaten to destroy the standing of the court itself.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
The big prize is most assuredly NOT Roe; that’s been a moneymaker for decades for the right. Abortion is de facto unavailable in the red states anyway, but they can keep pointing to Roe and “the millions of dead babies” and keep the cash flowing in.
The Voting Rights Act is another story. Repeal that and you really will have a “permanent Republican majority”.
That and getting rid of capital gains taxes are the immediate goal. Elimination of the public schools is next on the list.
4tehlulz
>big prize- Roe v. Wade
No, that would be Brown v. Board of Education.
kay
The big prize is the commerce clause.
Most of the liberal advances since FDR fall without the current interpretation of the commerce clause.
All of it. Rand Paul’s description of the US is the goal.
The Kentucky Senate race in 2010 was the definitive argument, for both sides.
Some Loser
@jrg: We should apply the same standards to any demographic facing oppression and such. People just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right? Or maybe I am being ignorant again, and I don’t see the full implications of helping people.
buggy ding dong
Oh, jesus. Racial quotas have been illegal since Bakke. To bring up that canard shows where you really stand.
Texas is a minority-majority state and soon to be Hispanic majority. The schools many of these kids come from are severely under-funded and lag far behind wealthier, whiter schools. So, in la-la land, there is no compelling state interest in ensuring students from those less well-off schools receive inclusion at the state’s premier institutions.
So many of those crying about affirmative action were, at the very least, born on second and think they hit a double. There is absolutely no cry on their part to get rid of legacy slots or when a rich donor’s children get in.
Let’s also put it more bluntly: in 30 years, white folks like me are going to be screaming their fool heads off to ensure diversity on campuses.
Chris
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity:
It’s also getting more and more urgent as the demographics change. Many here have pointed out that twenty years ago, if McCain had gotten the same percentage of the white vote, he would have won. The old Southern Strategy tactics are on their way to irrelevance, and if they want to survive, they’re going to have to take drastic measures. Ending the Voting Rights Act is one of them.
Put me down for the Voting Rights Act being the ultimate prize.
rb
@jrg: you people
Yeah, yeah, heard it before.
handsmile
@WaterGirl: (#41)
You may have read this yourself by now, but the answer to your question is to be found in the final paragraph of the NYT article at John Cole’s first link above:
cmorenc
@The Dangerman:
The post-2010 GOP goal is to erect as many lasting structural barriers as possible against the coming demographic shift in political power as possible, to destroy as much of the foundation of government needed to implement progressive policies as possible, making it difficult to successfully govern for two, three, or even four decades into the future. The disastrous runup in national debt under George W. Bush was a quite deliberate effort to financially hamstring the federal government, and insure that anything so disastrous to their goals as a responsibly solvent federal government as existed near the end of the Clinton Administration would ever be possible again within anyone’s lifetime.
Mnemosyne
@buggy ding dong:
Some Ivy League schools have already been caught fiddling with the numbers so they don’t end up with too many Asian-American students, so, yes, whitey is already working to try and keep his advantage.
(And I say that as someone so white I’m practically transparent.)
cmorenc
@kay: The Kentucky Senate race in 2010 was the definitive argument, for both sides (regarding the commerce clause)
jrg
@rb: Oh, Jesus Christ. Seriously?
@Mnemosyne: Yep, and that’s wrong, too.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
@joeyess: The right wing has been fighting a war on America since 1980. The left is not willing to admit that such a war exists.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
People are choosing up sides. I don’t know why this is a mystery at this point. We have left any pretense of union and country, that has only been held together by mutual outside threats, and a common purpose to deal with those. WW2, Cold War, etc…../ It can be found in much of the right wing rhetoric these days, a barely disguised call to rebellion and fatalistic talk for defeating the godless liberal and his humanistic pact with the devil. Or else.
All of the past restraints are falling around us for the conservative minded. Citizens United was the wake up call. Or maybe Bush V Gore before it. And when it comes to the culture and ideological wars, I don’t trust the current right wing SCOTUS any further than I can spit for them doing their jobs concerning ANY stare decisis. We know they covet undoing the progressive social pact they all hate like the plague. We will likely know when the ACA is decided, which way that wind will blow. I think Roe is toast, at least at the national level.
They want their country back. As white rulers that is their birthright, at least in their own minds. How fast and far will they take it , remains to be seen. Ricky tells us the devil has America by the short hairs, and he is not just posturing. Whether a majority of the country believes him and is able to show it with their votes, we shall soon find out. I don’t think the right wing is going to open the door on shoveling out all but their own beliefs, without going all in. And I personally believe with all its faults, this country is better than that, on the whole. We kicked out the British and their state church, and I think we will do it again. But not without a fight.
mikeyes
Fisher v. Unversity of Texas may end up being a very narrow decision based on whether or not the University exceeded the boundaries of Grutter v. Bollinger (the 2003 decision that decided that race could be used as one of the factors that can be used in determining the make-up of a class in a public university) in one part of their application/acceptance process.
Elana Kagan was the Solicitor General when this case was in the Fifth Circuit and the Executive filed a brief in the case. She recused herself based on this as she did in earlier cases she had been involved in before her selection to SCOTUS. (See SCOTUSblog for more.)
The Roberts court may just decide the question as to whether or not UT’s plan is constitutional or they may just decide to send the case back to the Fifth Circuit to reconsider. Grutter is established law and it is unlikely that they want to change that. They may tweak the UT program or they may change the time limit in Grutter.
Abigail Fisher applied to UT after the top students of her high school were taken under the Texas “10% Rule” in which the top ten percent of every high school class is automatically accepted to Texas universities. This rule, which has accounted for a much larger minority presence at the major TX universities, is not in question.
The selection process for the seats left over after the 10% Rule is being scrutinized to see if it exceeds Grutter. So far one court has said it doesn’t and the en banc Fifth Circuit refused to take the case.
Abigail Fisher went on to LSU after being turned down at Texas and has graduated. She is asking for her application fee back and a ruling on the constitutionality of the secondary admission process at UT. Even if that is struck down, it will not affect the major tool that Texas schools use to diversify.
Some Loser
I find it odd that any liberal would call Affirmative Action bad. It is not a perfect solution as Mnemosyne has shown, but it seems much better than the alternative. Though I was trying to come off snarky before, I genuinely don’t understand the mentality.
brendancalling
they tear down roe, I guarantee someone gets shot.
i can also see people getting shot over the voting rights act.
Irony Abounds
Whether or not Roe v Wade is the big prize, if there is a Republican President come January he/she will have a chance to replace one of the liberal justices on the SC and Roe v. Wade, like Frazier, will go down (probably by deciding there is no right of privacy, although the Roe decision, no matter how much you may be pro-choice, is not exactly at the top of the heap in the legal reasoning category). A Republican President most assuredly means a Republican House and Senate, and there is no end to the damage that troika will do (the filibuster will be eliminated or weakened to the extent necessary to remove it as an obstacle to Republican plans).
As unhappy as many liberals may be with Obama, the thought that there is no difference who wins the Presidency come November is so stupid it makes Palin look like Einstein.
Another Halocene Human
@jrg: How can it be a decision not based on race in a context of structural racism?
You know what else is fascinating? Many of these schools have voluntary affirmative action programs. That will become illegal, yet it’s not illegal at all to discriminate in favor of your best donor families.
I wonder if suspect classes are next. Guess what this will do to employment law. A return to the days of “IRISH NEED NOT APPLY”?
Another Halocene Human
@Mino: We need to compete with China!!11eleventy
Lojasmo
@jrg:
White male?
Too soon?
jrg
@Some Loser: I grew up down the street from a black guy who’s parents were dentists. He was a bright guy, so I doubt he wouldn’t have done well without AA (he’s an oncologist now). I don’t know if he benefited from AA, but it wouldn’t have mattered if he did or not. He’d still be successful.
I find it pretty offensive that someone thinks he should be given an advantage due to the color of his skin (over, say, a white kid from a trailer park), when socioeconomic factors clearly played a bigger role in his success than anything else. That’s my beef. And honestly, I don’t understand how the belief that he needs more help because he’s black isn’t viewed as racist.
Ridnik Chrome
@brendancalling: People are already getting shot over RvW…
jrg
@Lojasmo: Computer Science graduate.
@Another Halocene Human: This is why I shouldn’t even bother. What the fuck makes you think that because I don’t support AA, I support legacy admissions and parents buying their way into schools? Try, for five fucking seconds, to hold more than one thought in your head at a time. K? Thanks!
NR
@Irony Abounds:
Hey now. You’re talking like the filibuster is just a simple Senate rule that can be changed at any time by a majority vote and not an all-powerful, magical force that can never be defeated and forces a 60 vote requirement on everything the Senate does, no matter what. That’s crazy talk! There is absolutely NO way to get around the filibuster. The Democrats told us so all throughout 2009 and 2010.
The Populist
@The Dangerman:
I disagree. The hard right will get it overturned. To a non-believer like Rove and more moderate cons, they LOVE the RvW issue being out there as a rallying cry. Criminalize abortion and the party may splinter. To a true believer theocon, they believe that people will throw them a parade and accept it. They don’t have an imagination that allows them to see the potential long term damage to their overall cause. They believe in scorched earth totality.
If I was a betting man, 2016 will be the beginning of a move by youths who vote GOP to go into a libertarian/Ron Paul type party. The end is near for the GOP but like any last gasp of a totalitarian, they will do whatever they can to get things they disagree with repealed quickly even if it means violence in the streets.
LiteralReddy
@jrg:
Of course, there is no systemic racism or sexism.
None at all.
Another Halocene Human
@jrg:
Black applicants ARE harmed by being judged by their race. It’s called UNCONSCIOUS BIAS. You see, jrg, the law recognizes that human beings are only, well, human, and came up with a method to even out the impact of the unconscious bias of otherwise well-meaning people.
If we did not have structural racism, then the gatekeepers would be as diverse as America and the impacts of individuals’ unconscious bias would even out. Assuming, of course, that we as a people had overcome the legacy of self-hatred among certain ethnic minorities which has been documented in numerous psychological studies.
Some Loser
@jrg: I’d like to explain privilege and the power dynamics implied by it (privilege that is). I’d also like to talk about institutionalized racism that is also implied by privilege in the American system. When discussing Affirmative Action, it is best to look at the whole picture.
Anyway, I can’t sit down to discuss these wonderful topics with you. I have some college work to do. I’ll hit you up later, possibly in an open thread when I have time. Of course, that is if someone else doesn’t explain these concepts to you first.
The Populist
Oh and thanks to all the dipshits who stayed home in 2010 because they were mad about something.
Sorry if I am talking to anybody here but this clusterfuck of tea party lawmaking and hard right ideology is a direct result of the voters not showing up to put the nail in an already reeling GOP (at that time!).
Yep, sorry to say it in such stark terms but I am so fed up with everything I am seeing. Anybody complaining about Obama compromising didn’t see what I saw when he came out after the results were in and said he’d work closer with the right. He needed us to give him more cushion in the house and senate and we failed. NOW we have gridlock worse than we’ve ever seen, GOP governors taking away rights like nothing I’ve seen in my lifetime and it looks like they will push even harder to make people LOSE more rights in the near future. They call themselves the party of liberty, HA!
Anyway, the supreme court and congress can be ours again if we just mobilize and get the damn vote out in November. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…I do not want to see hard earned protections and freedoms whittled away any further by idiots pretending to be friends of liberty (they just aren’t).
jrg
@Some Loser: Here we go again.
I love the assumption that all white guys work in small-town law offices, or spend their days on the fucking golf course.
Because, you know, only white people with Engineering degrees can find work. It’s pretty much impossible for non-whites to get a job in tech, what with all the structural racism and everything.
kay
@cmorenc:
No, it really was. The Kentucky Senate race was about liberals and conservatives and the Commerce Clause. Rand Paul was attacking the whole legal justification for everything since FDR. Most of it is based on the commerce clause. I don’t know if Kentucky voters knew it, but that’s what they were arguing about.
Rachel Maddow was the only media figure who got it. When she went after Rand Paul on the Americans with Disabilities Act that’s what she was doing. If, like Rand Paul, you do not believe the federal government has the power to reach private entities (like with the ADA) then you cannot support much of liberal legislation since FDR, because there’s NO constitutional basis for a lot of it without the (current) liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.
I know the election of Rand Paul doesn’t equal the end of modern commerce clause jurisprudence, but that’s his goal. Why turn over all this (popular) legislation? Why not just attack the foundation? Then it all falls down.
uptown
Exactly why do the Supremes think they should be able overrule Congress on this (the Voting Rights Act)?
The Populist
@Some Loser: Making voting harder for minorities and ensuring that they have no opportunities because an old white person is making decisions will mean that this country will see race riots like none we’ve ever seen.
What are these righties trying to accomplish? For that matter, why do these poor working whites not see what is coming for them next? They are next btw, once TPTB change the rules for minorities and women, they will then go after work rules, minimum wage laws, the right to assemble, the ability to file grievance via the judicial system and so on.
Yep, the poor whites in this country better wake up quickly. These changes may make them feel like some kind of perceived “fairness” has been returned to the system YET they will realize that they sold their souls to a party that will strip them of whatever they have left (outside of their guns and bibles).
Shameful. Just shameful.
The Populist
@kay: Hence backing up my rant above. People better wake up. Once the hard right and their benefactors are done with people of color and women, they will make it impossible for anybody with little education to do anything of value.
Say you make a food product out of your home and sell it. If water is polluted, nobody is buying what you’re selling.
Say you need xxx dollars to make ends meet. Say you work a Mickey D’s job in the day and a Wal Mart job at night, if the minimum wage goes away do you really believe that prices will follow? Sorry, they won’t — not completely seeing that any commodity in any product is subject to the whims of speculation on wall street.
Want to see your kids? Sorry, wait until they repeal laws protecting you from being worked without overtime pay or even being fired on a whim because you had to miss a day due to an illness.
Enjoy the great outdoors and like to hunt? Why would you dare eat anything that drinks crap water and breathes in toxins?
What about the local park? Nope, cities won’t pay for them so they will either be turned into another strip mall or you will have to PAY to enjoy. It’s coming…
See, the problem I have with the idiots who buy into the lies that cons sell is that they don’t see the reality that all this crap WILL not stop with the blacks, asians or mexicans. It will not stop at women. IT WILL embolden these tards to go after more freedoms and rights we take for granted.
Yep, third world status, here we come.
kay
Without pre-clearance and the VRA, states can suppress votes without federal oversight and intervention, and thus keep the people who suppress votes in power, which leaves people no other recourse than to assemble and march.
Which is exactly what happened. Which is why we have the VRA.
It’ll happen again. The suppressed minority voters CANNOT throw the state leaders who are suppressing their vote OUT with an election. That’s why the federal government had to step in in the first place. A state election couldn’t fix the problem. Why do conservatives think this will work this time? What is the recourse for the disenfranchised voters? Courts? Too late. The election is over by then. That’s why it’s PRE-CLEARANCE.
kay
@The Populist:
Conway made this great speech on Democrats and the Commerce Clause during that race. It was so good I put it up here. He listed all the programs since FDR.
So he knew what the hell was up, but he’s an AG, so he would :)
satby
@The Populist: I’ve been having a long miserable discussion with 2 young friends of friends on FB; both of whom posted a “no one for President 2012” graphic. They’re young but I thought teachable. BUT the neo-Paulist drivel and /or purity trolling about “lesser of two evils” voting is making me crazy. The concept that incremental policy wins are better than losses and rights roll backs just eludes them, or worse yet, they think like Nader that there’s no real difference between the two parties. STILL, after the last 10 years, though to be fair as 20-somethings they may only be aware of the last 5 of those years.
gwangung
Yup. There you go again, stopping your ears and screaming “La la la la, I can’t hear you.”
Try to remember anecdotes aren’t the plural of data.
kay
@The Populist:
People hate when I say this here, where I live, and they all start yelling at me, but I’m ready for them to overturn Roe.
At some point, one gets tired of being threatened. Ya know, after THIRTY YEARS of threats.
Just bring your stupid case already and let’s go. If we lose, we can beat them to death with it in the next election. I’m tired of their threats and us placating and soothing and apologizing for Roe. The risk/reward ratio has tipped to “risk”, because they’re such insufferable bullying assholes.
Get ON with it, already. I can’t stand this threat/placate/threat/placate cycle. Increasingly, I find it worse than a real knock down drag out all the marbles fight.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@jrg:
I thought you weren’t going argue this any more.
eemom
@kay:
I dunno, I kind of think Roe has become a red herring at this point. The fucktards are doing so beautifully rendering the right to an abortion meaningless through the sick shit laws cruising through republican controlled state legislatures.
As others have said above, leaving Roe on the books gives them something to fundraise with and beat their stupid neanderthal chests over every January 22 here in deecee. It’s like the best of both worlds, if you’re a fucktard.
ETA: and actually it’s going to be FORTY years, next January.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@kay:
Amen, Kay. The whole ‘transvaginal ultrasound’ debate has just sickened me, and having to fight such sickness on a daily basis. They already have defeated Roe in many states, making it near impossible to get an abortion. And maybe it’s time to pull the plug on such a single divisive issue for those who want to live where there is no abortion. But it must be simply a ruling that is a federalist issue, and not some kind of declaration that the fertilized egg is human life, subject to all the legal protections that exist outside the womb. That will just switch the fight around from what it is now.
kay
@eemom:
I agree. Also. I’m tired of threats. There’s some value on just finally calling them on it, because I think the threats keep pro-choicers on the defensive and somewhat cowed and cautious. “We might lose!” made sense to me, once, but no more.
Let them defend for a while, in an election, not a court, and we (of course) will go IMMEDIATELY to Griswold and contraception in that post-Roe election, because now they’re vulnerable even there, so we can and should.
kay
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
It’s funny, because that’s fact and it’s important, but what I hate is what I see increasingly as them bullying and then women apologizing.
I heard this probably 40 year old reporter joking that she and her husband use contraception (HA HA HA) and that just makes me tired.
She shouldn’t have to defend that. She shouldn’t have to say “husband” or put it in some “acceptable” frame or make herself appealing and non-threatening by laughing nervously or address it AT ALL, actually, because it is NONE of their business.
I hate to listen to them.
I think the rhetoric, where women are the silent objects of all this law and fake-debate, does harm to women. How they think of themselves. It’s very gut-level to me. I don’t want them, us, used as pawns.
OzoneR
Really, it might be time for this country to break up and gom our own ways. I’m really tired of having to put up with Alabama Crazy, Texas Ignorant and Kentucky Bigotry.
BobPM
The best way to defend against assaults against legislation like the Voting Rights Act is a credible campaign for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the basic objective.
After the ERA amendment was proposed, the court adopted equality measures that made the amendment unnecessary. If the Voting Rights Act is under assault, propose a Voting Rights Amendment and push hard for it. I think you will see the court quickly find the act constitutional to avoid the need for a Constitutional Amendment.
jrg
@gwangung:
I guess I have to rely on more than a decade’s worth of anecdotes from working in the tech field, never having seen nepotism, and always having worked in diverse environments over all of the data you all failed to provide.
Of course, the fact that I have skills that allow me to get a job has nothing to do with the fact that I have a job. I have a job because of “white privilege”… Yeah, and I’m the fucking racist.
Another Halocene Human
@Some Loser: Honestly, a lot of rich conservatives were involved in affirmative action in the early days (a/k/a Affirmative Action As Long As My Johnny Still Has His Guaranteed Slot).
The ones who are freaking about it are marginal whites who are defending what’s left of their white privilege. (a/k/a How dare those WASPs give public service jobs to kn*ckers. Those are OUR jobs!)
Heh, I am recalling the hysteria over Sotomayor in wingnut circles. The projection by the white supremacists was something to behold.
Nylund
White people actually benefit tremendously from affirmative action. In schools where race is not considered, the admittance rate of Asians shoots way up (with white people taking the biggest losses). Yes it affects hispanics, black people, etc. as well, but by far, the biggest changes are seen among whites and Asians.
The reality is that the biggest thing taking race into consideration is, is let a whole lot of white kids get in instead of a whole bunch of more qualified Asian kids.
It always strikes me as funny when white conservatives complain about affirmative action. White people are actually the ones that benefit the most!
Another Halocene Human
@jrg: Apparently I hit a nerve…
The Populist
@kay: Amen. I am ready to fight for my beliefs too. RvW being one.
I have a cynical POV on this that says go ahead and turn these things back and I promise any of my rightie friends that the revolution will finally come. I don’t think they care though. They really believe the right is the only answer to solving this country’s problems. Argh…
Another Halocene Human
@jrg: Hahahahaha ragey aspie engineering libbertardian is ragey.
Rest assured, the ructions over the entry of “non-traditional” students into engineering programs mostly ended years ago and we only see the aftershocks.
Charles Whitman went postal back in 1966…
The Populist
@OzoneR: This. I am not against this idea. Better yet, we agree to let the bible belt leave and the rest of us can try to coexist. While Idaho and Arizona are another brand of crazy, there are still enough thoughtful people there to change things over time.
I have all but given up on TX, MS, AL, KY, SC, GA, LA, OK and AR to do the right thing. I am fine with compromise as long as it’s genuine and fair minded. Problem is these folks see compromise as a crime worse than anything.
I live in California so I would not mind being lumped into a new country where WA and OR join us. NV is welcome as long as the thoughtful folks tell the right wingers where to go. I’d tell AZ where to go because they won’t survive left to their own devices or in a new Southern USA if NM doesn’t join (and that state may not).
Another Halocene Human
@The Populist:
You know, I doubt it… rioting is done by those who have nothing left to lose. But African Americans in this country have a LOT to lose. I would expect direct action.
Also, too, the majority of anarchist sh!theels appear to be young white males.
Some Loser
@jrg: Yeah, you are a racist and an asshole.
I was going to try and discuss these issues with you, but you act like most white people when they hear about white privilege. I thought it would be easier to even initiate a conversation about race with a liberal, a progressive, but I was wrong, again. You act just like a fucking Republican: eager to play the white victimization bullshit.
Who even implied this? In the entire thread? Do you not see how this immediately stops any conversation about the subject? This stupid ass rage?
Privilege does not imply, in any shape or form, that you did not earn your job. That the privileged cannot be poor or mistreated.
At what did my post imply that all white people have nice cushy little jobs? That white people never face any hardships? How did my offer deserve your rage? I implied nothing other than you being ignorant on these subjects. That wasn’t a fucking insult. That was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong, of course.
Is this how you react when people mention this subject? Can you not even attempt to see beyond your own bullshit for just a moment?
I came clean. I was trying to be nice. I was trying to impart some of my admittedly limited insight on this subject.
My first instinct about you was right, though. Another white asshole who pretends we’re in a post-racism America. I should have seen what you were when you posted this lovely piece of bullshit.
Just like a conservative, y’know. You make your dumbass point and then, what is the term, “hippie-punch”. Reflexive, too. Do you even think about the implications of what you advocate? Do you not even consider the possibility that you do not understand what you’re talking about? Missing any of the data? Haven’t thought of all the possibilities? Has any of this ever once crossed your mind?
Of course not. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if you did, you racist asshole.
jrg
@Another Halocene Human: Accusing me of being autistic? Boy, that’s a compelling argument for affirmative action. You’ve got nothing.
Some Loser
@jrg: I would have thought the bigger accusation would’ve been being called a libertarian. But hell, what would I know? I’m just some loser.
jrg
@Some Loser:
Yes, it does.
Post data that points to systemic racism in the tech field. I want to see it.
Some Loser
@Some Loser:
What the hell is wrong with my blockquotes? I pretty sure I did them correctly. Just take note the second blockquote ends at ‘everything.’ and not ‘again’.
Some Loser
@jrg: You really are a dumbass, you know that?
Well, let me amend my statement.
You will continue being a dumbass, though? Right?
jrg
@Some Loser: Whatever, sport. Show me the data. You and Human can call me racist, an asshole, a dumbass, autistic, whatever, all day long. It still doesn’t change the fact that you have no data to prove your point.
Mike Lamb
@jrg: So assuming for argument sake that there is no structural or systemic racism in the “tech field”. Does that mean there is no structural or systemic racism in any field? Because that is surely what you argument implies. It’s the rough equivalent of arguing that because it’s cold in Eastern Europe, there’s no global warming.
And if Ground Zero for fighting systemic racism is college admissions, wouldn’t the fact that you aren’t (allegedly) seeing systemic racism in the “tech field” give some evidence as to its (AA’s) efficacy?
Finally, isn’t equally plausible that there is no systemic racism in the “tech field” given that it’s largely a new industry?
Some Loser
@jrg: Don’t worry. I am getting some data.
Kind of hard juggling severals assignments and picking thoughts CPS website for good tables, but I’ll get your damned important data.
Also, please do not call me sport; I am an adult, not a child.
I would also like to point out that you have the same amount of data as Human and I.
While I am doing some research for you, why don’t you look up White Privilege? Maybe you can read from someone who can put it more eloquently/intelligently than me. It is bound to be an enlightening experience, or not.
jrg
@Mike Lamb:
Yes, I think so. I also think that’s why there’s not a lot of nepotism, either.
No, not really, considering that a very, very large number of people in tech are immigrants.
No, I think it’s probably more common in more established, more relationship-based fields, like finance or law. I’ve witnessed it in finance.
Some Loser hit on some of what pisses me off about it, when “white privilege” is applied broadly, without regard to context – it implies that my resume might as well say “Hire me, I am white”, and all accomplishments can be chalked up to that.
Additionally, I think that some of the backlash that produces morons on the populist right (like Palin) happens because of AA. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it does anyone any favors.
…Hell, I’m not even arguing that “privilege” doesn’t exist. I’m just saying it takes the form of having parents that care about your education, plan for your future, etc. That is to say, “privilege” is as much a socioeconomic concept as anything else. Those industries where “white privilege” are a factor are largely moribund.
Some Loser
@jrg:
Where was this implied? Seriously. Point to my post where this shit was implied. I just fucking mentioned it after you talked bullshit about Affirmative Action. I mentioned it in regards to Affirmative Action.
You got pissed off at your own hurt feelings and knee-jerk reaction. Here I am, collecting some data for my point of view, and then I find out you are just overreacting to some shit no one here said.
What the hell is wrong with you? What is wrong with me? Why I am even wasting my time you, again?
jrg
@Some Loser:
OK, If you can refrain from calling me a racist asshole, we should be fine.
Yea, but I’m not the one making the assertion.
OK. I need causation. “the tech field employs X% of race Y, but they are Z% of the population” doesn’t prove anything. Something that compares qualified applicants to an employed percentage would work.
Mnemosyne
@jrg:
Hate to break it to you, but a lot of the time, that really is all it is. There was a really eye-opening study done a few years ago showing that otherwise identical candidates were accepted or rejected for jobs based on their race. In fact, the white candidates who said that they had a criminal record were more likely to be offered the job than black candidates with no criminal record.
It’s depressing to realize that you’ve unknowingly benefited from other people’s racism throughout your life, but it’s true.
jrg
@Mnemosyne: As far as I know, I don’t work with anyone who’s been convicted of a felony, white or black.
Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not… But I’m not trying to write it into law, am I?
There are studies that show tall people make more money. Why isn’t there AA for short people?
fuzz
They won’t stop with Roe-Wade, because that was the last in a long line of cases that involved right to privacy and contraceptives. As soon as abortion is illegal the sights (literally, on their guns) will be fixed on contraceptives and possibly even the decriminalization of sodomy. The culture war will never, ever end until we’re living in pre-New Deal America once again.
Some Loser
@jrg:
Please read the thread from the time you posted to where we are now. I was a little snarky at the beginning, but you’ve been completely childish, whining and throwing fits at everyone at the slightest provocation.
This is a thing you said. I’m just agreeing with you.
Some Loser
@jrg:
You’re right, y’know. It doesn’t matter if people are being discriminated against, treated poorly or differently because of some bigoted reason. Enacting any law that may counteract the effects of bigotry is just as bad as being a bigot.
Mnemosyne
@jrg:
Yeah, I was pretty sure that even direct evidence wouldn’t change your mind. You seem pretty tied into your self-image as a Self-Made Man who didn’t get any help from anyone, so the assistance that you did get is invisible to you.
Of course, that’s the nice thing about having privilege — because it’s invisible to you, you can deny it exists even when people point it out.
fuckwit
No! Roe v Wade is NOT the big prize.
The big prize is Griswold. That’s what they’re really after.
The American Taliban are coming for your pills and condoms. We’re already seeing it with this stupid attack on birth control, it’s transparent now.
ALL YOUR NAUGHTY BITS ARE BELONG TO JEEBUS!
jrg
@Mnemosyne: Yes, and what a mountain of evidence that article provided to dispute my point. An unknown hiring manager, in an unknown industry, somewhere in Milwaukee, is a racist. Very compelling.
I’m a changed man, after reading this thread. I’m going to linkedin right now to remove “being white” from my list of skills. I might even call my old Linear Algebra prof, and thank her for that “A” I got when I turned in my final with the words: “Answer is spatula. PS I is white.”
But seriously, I’ll do what I should have done before. Leave this thread. Good night.
rikyrah
the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are WHITE WOMEN.
until you’re willing to BEGIN a discussion on Affirmative Action with this….
talk to the hand.
Paula
Well, to take up AA issue, many people have suggested that class-based AA is a less controversial way to use college admissions. But looking up any major studies re class-based AA is STILL like looking for needle in a Google haystack. The ones (2) I actually found in the top 4 pages reported that class-based AA was good for underrepresented minorities in middle- and upper-class income brackets — which is one of the critiques used against race-based AA.
Meanwhile, the UC system is still rebounding from Prop 209. Cal Berkeley apparently has a lower percentage of Black students than Stanford. But according to some stats, minority students who are NOT going to UC are merely choosing to go to comparable private colleges that still practice race-based AA. And, overall, due to the proactive stance that schools and alumni groups have had in trying to attract underrepresented minorities back to the UCs, their numbers are climbing back slightly. Still, there are low compared to the percentages pre-209.
I guess the question is whether schools have the resources to study and implement alternative policies for diversity if race-based AA were to be taken away. Because the general assumption among university administrators seems to be that minority enrollment will go down, and that is actually something that they don’t want to happen.
wetcasements
Overturning Roe v. Wade might not be so bad. States could make their own decisions, and abortion would become safe and legal in about half of them. Much easier to cross state lines than having to worry if your doctor will get his head blown off.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@jrg:
No, it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. That’s not what those words mean. You are choosing to be pissy over something that nobody ever said.
Maybe you should learn a little more about the concept of white privilege before you decide that it’s nothing but a bunch of meanies come to call you a poopy-head.
And if you honestly think that being white has never once benefited you throughout your life, you are a moron. Just straight up stupid. Open your fucking eyes.
I’m broke as hell. I have no big time connections to help me out. But let me tell you, being white has been a tremendous benefit to me. Just the fact that all my interactions with the police are far, far less stressful than they are for a black person would be plenty to call it a huge benefit, but that’s just the tip of the privilege iceberg.
If you really can’t see how being white has helped you in your life, you’re probably trying hard not to see it. You know, one good way to avoid talking about it is to get irrationally angry when faced with the idea that being white is helpful in American society. You know, whine about being insulted rather than actually consider the subject matter.
Paul in KY
@cmorenc: Plus, Mr. Conway didn’t run that good of a race. Was disappointed in him.
Paul in KY
@jrg: The black guy whose parents were both dentists is an outlier. In most black families (and most whites), the parents are not dentists.
I guess you were envious of that guy.
Hypnos
Christ that jrg guy is quite an idiot. Tech is pretty much up there when it comes to prejudice. Off the top of my head some 30% of CS graduates are women and less than 4% of people in executive positions at tech firms are.
If he put a black’s picture on his nice shiny CV he wouldn’t get anywhere, that’s for sure.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/19/racism-and-meritocracy/
BrianM
@jrg:
Racism doesn’t get talked about a lot in high tech. Sexism does, though. There’s been a lot about it recently. Have you missed that?