The other day, our Supreme Court decided that the State of Michigan’s Affirmative Action process, disarmed by the majority of voters in that state, (via referendum), was illegal. This meant that as far as college admissions are concerned, the referendum vote was okay, because basically, no minority student has complained about not being accepted as a student in the colleges and universities of the state. In other words, since the universities were allowed to use students’ minority status as a factor to determine admittance, minority students did not complain, apparently satisfied that they were being admitted. So the justices decided that there was no discrimination, ergo, no need for affirmative action, so they deemed that the people of the state (mostly white) were correct in voting i away. The Supreme Court validated the people’s decision. But they chose to ignore the fact that minority admissions declined by 30% since the results of the referendum were implemented three years ago! I think that that fact, alone, should have been sufficient for them to understand that affirmation actions were necessary to preserve the level of minority admissions to the state’s universities and that the people of the state on the score, could not dismiss affirmative action!
“(On*) Tuesday (of this week*), the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the outlook for the use of race in educational policy with its decision in the Michigan college case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. In a 6-2 decision (with Justice Elena Kagan not taking part), the court ruled – for the first time – that the voters of a state may bar their public officials from any use of race in admissions to public colleges.
Although the court’s lead opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, stressed that the court was not ruling on whether race-based admissions policies themselves were unconstitutional, the ruling created an opening for states to scuttle “affirmative action.” It said explicitly that issues of racial policy in America can be handled quite competently at the polling place.
Almost certainly, the skepticism that the Kennedy opinion expressed in that opinion about the role of the judiciary in overseeing America’s debate about racial issues will be studied by the appeals court judges as they prepare to write their ruling in the new round in the University of Texas case.
In fact, on Tuesday, lawyers for the University of Texas brought the new decision to the appeals court’s attention, to try to persuade those judges that the Supreme Court, in fact, had not undermined the constitutional premises of “affirmative action.” The challengers to Texas’s admissions policies very likely will take a different view.” (Philly.com)
A few of the Sunday pundits (and by the way, I am concerned that on the shows that I watch, among them, Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, that they see the decision as a “states-rights” issue
that the states should determine the welfare of its citizens. We all have seen the results of that thinking; slavery, allowing Jim Crow laws, curtailing voting rights, jerrymandering voting districts, oppressive gun laws, and so on. The control on these egregious activities has to be Congress and the Federal government and now the Supreme Court has taken away those safeguards and protections away. This is another reason why we must elect members to Congress who will insure the advancement of our (all Americans) rights.
that the states should determine the welfare of its citizens. We all have seen the results of that thinking; slavery, allowing Jim Crow laws, curtailing voting rights, jerrymandering voting districts, oppressive gun laws, and so on. The control on these egregious activities has to be Congress and the Federal government and now the Supreme Court has taken away those safeguards and protections away. This is another reason why we must elect members to Congress who will insure the advancement of our (all America) rights.
I was going to leave cliven bundy matter to the pundits but when the ignorant fool doubled down on his racist remarks and compared his situation to Rosa Parks and “wondered” if MLK Jr. would agree with his rhetoric, I have to repeat my assessment of the man. He’s still a person at the age of 67, who is lost in the wilderness of his environment, listening to the likes of rashlimburger and sean ha(unt)nity, m. huckaberryee and so on, and conjures up a reason to demean a group who he believes is worse off than he is.
But the television interview of a non-descript “black“ man named Jason Bullock, doing his best “stepin fetchit” impression, has me furious. This person who claimed to be a “bodyguard” for the bigot, attempts to explain the racial slurs by bundy to the media for the world to see and hear. As he babbled to explain away the diatribe, he embarrassed himself. While he allows bundy to call him a black boy or negro, bullock grins and does his tap dance so he can be a ”good ole boy”!
With all the slugs and moles coming out of their holes bearing shotguns, rifles and automatic weapons, purportedly to “defend” bundy’s right to ignore the duly constituted Federal Courts, and not pay grazing fees like all the other ranchers have done, does he really needs a “black” protector and spokesman. The question is, why is bullock really there? A shill? And to say he’s not getting paid…..just another low life, lost black man with a “cain/ west mentality” looking to exploit the sordid situation!
L A Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Rants
The alleged comments by this basketball team owner only proves that the sentiments of racism are not just the overt province of intellectually challenged poor whites who like many black people, find themselves at the bottom rung of the ladder and wrongly see other races as a barrier to their escape.
I cannot fully describe my reaction to these disgusting comments but many others have state their observations and in every case, I concur.
This comes at a time when the mostly Black team is vying for a world championship, and has to have an impact. After all, they work for this man and accept his money in payment of their toil. (Yeah, I know it’s a sport, but it’s a real job to them.) Remember, he owns the team and has been accepted into the small circle of privilege. Can the others disenfranchise him, kick him out of the “golden” clique? How do they do that and keep the team active? Should he be gone and how do you do it? Buy the team from him and find another rich person to run it?
By the time you read this, perhaps everything will be resolved.
What is embarassing, is that the local NAACP Chapter gave him an award and were ready to double down on that decision by giving him another award next month! I guess we didn’t see this coming…..the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing”!
I watched as the president of the Los Angeles chapter tried to explain their faux pas and was disappointed that he would try to gloss over the error.
I feel he should have owned up to the error, apologized for not vetting the man in more detail and saying something like this would never happen again, while recognizing a lot of other folks who knew, said nothing. After all, the NBA itself ignored the bigot and allowed him into their inner circle. Like the NAACP, they too, were motived by the money, except that Sterling evidently looks at his contributions to the organization as being benevolent to his subjects.
I’m satisfied; lifetime ban (no connection to the NBA whatsoever), maximum fine ($2.5 million). Well done Commissioner Adam Silver.