Conservatives are on a roll in their quest to remake America through the courts

[Social Media]

 

Conservatives – despite their limited federal elected power – racked up another huge win in the great political battle of the early 21st century.

The Supreme Court’s gutting of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday toppled another pillar of America’s liberal social infrastructure. Two more setbacks followed on Friday: the high court struck down the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program and dealt a blow to LGBTQ rights when it sided with a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.

Democrats have had their successes over the last 20 years – including earlier this month with decisions ordering the redraw of Alabama’s congressional map and rejecting a Trump-backed election law theory – but it often seems as though conservatives have the momentum.

 

 

Republicans only control one chamber of Congress, and narrowly so, while Democrats hold the White House and the Senate. And yet Thursday’s ruling further weakened a core principle of Democratic politics that unites the party’s presidents dating to Franklin Roosevelt – that the government should use its power to ease social injustices and lift up the disadvantaged. Civil rights advocates saw the decision as re-erecting barriers based on race that their forbears fought for decades to remove and a step back into tortured history.

 

FULL STORY

[SunnyinBangrak]

19 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Civil rights advocates saw the decision as re-erecting barriers based on race that their forbears fought for decades to remove and a step back into tortured history.

Can anyone explain how making everyone equal and stopping the discrimination against a group of people(Asians and whites) based solely on their race is "re-erecting barriers"?

 

 If everyone is equal, and the best qualified is hired, then there is motivation for everyone to study hard, and make an effort in life. There is no place for racism in todays society.

[gargamon]

At least the Dems now have an avenue of attack in the 2024 election. Oh, wait. Another avenue of attack would be more appropriate. There's so many now it's almost hard to keep track. 

[Tug]

Seems to me these non elected judges are forcing unwanted change on us an example is the web designers suit about not having to work for gay people,the problem is no one requested her services the suit is spurious brought about to force change some sketchy stuff in my opinion 

[Bkk Brian]

33 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Can anyone explain how making everyone equal and stopping the discrimination against a group of people(Asians and whites) based solely on their race is "re-erecting barriers"?

 

 If everyone is equal, and the best qualified is hired, then there is motivation for everyone to study hard, and make an effort in life. There is no place for racism in todays society.

You're assuming a person hired for a job will be the only one out of a group of interviewees who was the best qualified at all times. In reality that's not the case, often when recruiting for a post you come by 2 or 3 people who are all suitably qualified regardless of race/colour. The decision then is which one?

 

If you are recruiting in a low diversity area or organization then it could be said that taking affirmative action in that case is more than justified.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

You're assuming a person hired for a job will be the only one out of a group of interviewees who was the best qualified at all times. In reality that's not the case, often when recruiting for a post you come by 2 or 3 people who are all suitably qualified regardless of race/colour. The decision then is which one?

 

If you are recruiting in a low diversity area or organization then it could be said that taking affirmative action in that case is more than justified.

But that is not the case in the college admissions situation.  Highly qualified Asian students are being rejected while marginally (at best) qualified black and Hispanic students are accepted. That does nobody any favours. The black and Hispanic ones often fail to graduate because they are being put into a situation that is too academically rigorous for them. The Asians lose out on opportunities that they deserve due to their diligence and hard work.

 

Harvard example: 

Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/harvard-affirmative-action-opening-arguments/index.html

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

You're assuming a person hired for a job will be the only one out of a group of interviewees who was the best qualified at all times. In reality that's not the case, often when recruiting for a post you come by 2 or 3 people who are all suitably qualified regardless of race/colour. The decision then is which one?

 

If you are recruiting in a low diversity area or organization then it could be said that taking affirmative action in that case is more than justified.

Complete tosh.

 

If you interview 3 people and think they are all equally suited for the job then you shouldn't be interviewing. I interview all the time and at the end have a list of pluses and minuses on various aspects of their character and capability. 

 

The idea that I would sink to the level that race became the deciding factor is abhorrent to me. Both as a professional and as a person. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

But that is not the case in the college admissions situation.  Highly qualified Asian students are being rejected while marginally (at best) qualified black and Hispanic students are accepted. That does nobody any favours. The black and Hispanic ones often fail to graduate because they are being put into a situation that is too academically rigorous for them. The Asians lose out on opportunities that they deserve due to their diligence and hard work.

 

Harvard example: 

Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/harvard-affirmative-action-opening-arguments/index.html

No, I agree, not the same with college admissions but relevant to the post I was replying to.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Complete tosh.

 

If you interview 3 people and think they are all equally suited for the job then you shouldn't be interviewing. I interview all the time and at the end have a list of pluses and minuses on various aspects of their character and capability. 

 

The idea that I would sink to the level that race became the deciding factor is abhorrent to me. Both as a professional and as a person. 

May be in your experience but not in mine, interviewing 100's of people over a few years in the social care sector.

 

Affirmative action in the case I described is not necessarily to take into account race but can also take into account sex and culture.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

May be in your experience but not in mine, interviewing 100's of people over a few years in the social care sector.

 

Affirmative action in the case I described is not necessarily to take into account race but can also take into account sex and culture.

Can it take into account economic status and political leanings as well? 

I would say, all things being equal, if there are 3 equally qualified candidates for a job, give it to the one who looks like they need it the most for whatever reason. Chances are that in the long run they will do the best. 

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Can anyone explain how making everyone equal and stopping the discrimination against a group of people(Asians and whites) based solely on their race is "re-erecting barriers"?

 

 If everyone is equal, and the best qualified is hired, then there is motivation for everyone to study hard, and make an effort in life. There is no place for racism in todays society.

They won't stop anything. Those universities who aren't simply planning to defy the court will simply introduce income based discrimination which has the same effect.

[ozimoron]

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Jackson, who heard the UNC case. The ruling “subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education,” Sotomayor wrote.

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/06/harvard-united-in-resolve-in-face-of-supreme-courts-admissions-ruling/

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Can it take into account economic status and political leanings as well? 

I would say, all things being equal, if there are 3 equally qualified candidates for a job, give it to the one who looks like they need it the most for whatever reason. Chances are that in the long run they will do the best. 

It really depends on the situation. In its most basic form, if there are 3 different foster care couples that need to be interviewed to look after a black child, if the potential carers are all around the same in terms of skills and other factors then we would always pick a black couple first so long as the child agreed if they are of the age to agree.

 

Or if we are looking for a social worker for an all girls children home that is under represented in female residential social workers then of those who fit the same criteria we would go for a female pick.

 

There's lots of examples where affirmative action is required to fit the individual cases.

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Jackson, who heard the UNC case. The ruling “subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education,” Sotomayor wrote.

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/06/harvard-united-in-resolve-in-face-of-supreme-courts-admissions-ruling/

The elephant in the room is, as I posted above, the 280 point gap in SAT scores based on race.  A black student with 1100 on SAT is in. A white or Asian student? No chance.  Seems inherently and obviously unequal.  Asian students score on average higher on admissions tests, but are accepted at a lower rate than any other group.  Also seems inherently unfair to me.

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It really depends on the situation. In its most basic form, if there are 3 different foster care couples that need to be interviewed to look after a black child, if the potential carers are all around the same in terms of skills and other factors then we would always pick a black couple first so long as the child agreed if they are of the age to agree.

 

Or if we are looking for a social worker for an all girls children home that is under represented in female residential social workers then of those who fit the same criteria we would go for a female pick.

 

There's lots of examples where affirmative action is required to fit the individual cases.

I understand those examples but they aren't exactly what affirmative action is for. The culture of the child related to a foster family will naturally have an impact. IMHO it is a valid criteria. 

But AA seems to want diversity just for the sake of diversity, without any specifically articulated benefits or logic.  An example would be requirements for government funded infrastructure projects that mandate percentages of minority bid acceptance.  There is no relation between building infrastructure and race, yet the set asides exist. Even when better bids from non minority bidders are made, a poorer bid is accepted due to the race of the bidder.  This is what people want to eliminate. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

I understand those examples but they aren't exactly what affirmative action is for. The culture of the child related to a foster family will naturally have an impact. IMHO it is a valid criteria. 

But AA seems to want diversity just for the sake of diversity, without any specifically articulated benefits or logic.  An example would be requirements for government funded infrastructure projects that mandate percentages of minority bid acceptance.  There is no relation between building infrastructure and race, yet the set asides exist. Even when better bids from non minority bidders are made, a poorer bid is accepted due to the race of the bidder.  This is what people want to eliminate. 

Yes they are very sound examples of affirmative action, ones taken daily in the social sector.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes they are very sound examples of affirmative action, ones taken daily in the social sector.

Sorry but I just don't see it.

 

If the situation were reversed... a white kid needs foster care. Three families (black, white, Asian) are equally qualified to take the child. You would place the kid with the white family, correct? 

 

Ditto the care facility. For example, an all boys facility with too few male consellors. All things being equal, you would choose a male counsellor over a female one, wouldn't you? 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sorry but I just don't see it.

 

If the situation were reversed... a white kid needs foster care. Three families (black, white, Asian) are equally qualified to take the child. You would place the kid with the white family, correct? 

 

Ditto the care facility. For example, an all boys facility with too few male consellors. All things being equal, you would choose a male counsellor over a female one, wouldn't you? 

Wait in your previous reply you said:

 

11 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I understand those examples but they aren't exactly what affirmative action is for. The culture of the child related to a foster family will naturally have an impact. IMHO it is a valid criteria. 

But yes if the situation was reversed as you described then we would pick the male residential social worker and the white foster carers. (so long as the child agreed if age appropriate)

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Wait in your previous reply you said:

 

But yes if the situation was reversed as you described then we would pick the male residential social worker and the white foster carers. (so long as the child agreed if age appropriate)

I think we might be passing by each other a bit here... I agree with the criteria in your examples, but not as affirmative action examples.  They are examples of using race and/or gender as valid criteria in making decisions. 

 

To me a decision based on principles of affirmative action means that the race (in this case) takes precedent over other factors. So, for example, a black child would be placed with an otherwise less qualified foster family IF that family were also black. 

[Bkk Brian]

22 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I think we might be passing by each other a bit here... I agree with the criteria in your examples, but not as affirmative action examples.  They are examples of using race and/or gender as valid criteria in making decisions. 

 

To me a decision based on principles of affirmative action means that the race (in this case) takes precedent over other factors. So, for example, a black child would be placed with an otherwise less qualified foster family IF that family were also black. 

As a past Director of Social Services I can assure you it was affirmative action (not a criteria) to meet the needs of the children that were looked after by our agency, be that in foster care, residential care, outreach or residential school. 

 

If it was a criteria we wouldn't have that dilemma in the first place, as in the recruitment process we would only advertise by gender or race. Which you are very rarely allowed to do.

[EVENKEEL]

19 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

It really depends on the situation. In its most basic form, if there are 3 different foster care couples that need to be interviewed to look after a black child, if the potential carers are all around the same in terms of skills and other factors then we would always pick a black couple first so long as the child agreed if they are of the age to agree.

 

Or if we are looking for a social worker for an all girls children home that is under represented in female residential social workers then of those who fit the same criteria we would go for a female pick.

 

There's lots of examples where affirmative action is required to fit the individual cases.

That's not affirmative action examples, that's common sense.

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/2/2023 at 8:02 AM, EVENKEEL said:

That's not affirmative action examples, that's common sense.

Correct, affirmation action on recruitment can be pure common sense, you'll notice I stated "in its most basic form"

 

It becomes far more complex however when you start to recruit middle and senior management to lead those people and work places or environments. It then depends on each individual situation, the development needs, any ongoing problems, the team dynamics. The considerations are wide and will in may cases rely on affirmative action. But I'll leave it there.