thanks be to whomever that you wrote this this Sunday morning, the first pf per restricted society, terrifying, awful, that SCOTUS just made real. Brilliant. Beautiful writing.
Thank you. I couldn’t sleep and needed to “discharge” some of the anger and upset I’m feeling. I don’t think I could have gone on with the day until I did it.
They have abandoned precedent and what can we do about it other than expanding? Each district should have representation, each territory or district that wants to become a State should be able to, DC & PR in point.
Yes. I was disappointed to hear Biden say he was opposed to expansion of the court. I understand that future considerations are a worry but we’re in crisis NOW.
I found this essay a helpful counterweight to the bulwark podcast I just listened to where people offered a lot of reasonable arguments in favor of the ruling. For what it’s worth-- I didn’t disagree with anything they said, and some of them had personal experience with affirmative action themselves, or with students who benefited from affirmative action but then had less-than-ideal academic experiences in the aftermath. (I’m not making the best case on their behalf; it was 45 minutes of informed intellectual discussion.)
But I also think it’s possible to appreciate the many arguments that affirmative action is morally complex and the results arguably mixed, etc., while still wondering if the supremes are being disingenuous in this and other cases. Particularly Thomas. I definitely have a problem with the weaselly responses about abortion and legal precedent that they gave in the confirmation process.
Also-- although I imagine most people would prefer not to have this said out loud-- I feel that the typical fetus would probably just write one of those essays that begins “a fetus’s right to life is a very, very, very important subject, one which is considered important by many many people, from many different locales. It is very impactful, and not just on fetuses, but also on the many other impacted people, or impactees, as they’re sometimes known. In France, they call them le impactée.”
I guess I should listen to the podcast. But I haven’t yet heard a good argument in favor of the ruling. To my mind, we’ve always had affirmative action, but “baked” into history, consciousness, etc. We just didn’t call it Affirmative Action, and the racial and gender biases were unconsciously perpetuated. No need for a law. (For a personal example, when I was in college thanks to a scholarship, the Dean requested that I relinquish it so it could go to a draftable male. He didn’t think there was anything questionable about the request—and neither did I!!) I think the big mistake was calling racial consideration “Affirmative”—which suggests to many people that it’s some kind of unjustified PLUS, when it’s actually a way to get closer to clean deliberations by counterbalancing the “baked in” tendencies. Liberals and “progressives” are not very smart about language—“pro-abortion” is another example that has haunted reproductive rights and justice for the decades since Roe v Wade. And of course the ridiculous “defund the police.” (BTW, re these personal tales of bad results from AA I don’t consider them a valid “argument” as for every one of them there’s a hundred of the opposite kind of experience. And I also knew several “legacy” students who had to drop out of school. And of course there’s the athletes….)
I should be clear, I’m on board with everything you’re saying. I’ve always been in favor of affirmative action, and any argument against it on moral or philosophical grounds is bullshit to me. For me the question is always “does it accomplish its goals,” or “does it exclusively accomplish good things.” I’m in the camp that would vote for it, but I’m open to a discussion about whether it works, especially long term. But my general attitude about what you could call the philosophical conservative position is that I’m not always convinced they are being honest about how fucked up things were before the liberal corrective was brought in, or how fucked up things still are.
This is always the thing that makes me ping pong back and forth; whether the left is being honest about the effectiveness of a policy, but weighed against whether the right is being honest about the need for the corrective.
Re: the left and language. For me the most common “own goal” of the left is to argue that policy should happen because it’s morally right, and any objection to the left wing policy is morally wrong. This argument, even though I usually agree with it, preaches to the choir, and tends to lock in polarization and push some independents to the right. My feeling about Obamacare, for example, is that the selling narrative should have been more about money than morality. I tend to be in favor of trying to be persuasive and practical, rather than self-righteous. But I’m also haunted by the idea that this approach could ultimately be naive. With today’s right the way it is, my position is harder to argue than ever.
A quick note on practical rather than self-righteous. The smartest thing our very smart former governor did (he’s also the father of our current governor, who is also a great guy--and a Democrat, but that’s a whole other story, how Kentucky came to have a Dem governor) was to call Obamacare “Kentucky Kynect.” It’s ugly but hiding the “Obama” part here in the heart of XXXXXXX (fill in whatever you hate most about the GOP today and it’ll work) made the AAC incredibly popular from the beginning. And Kentuckians need it.
I always love the deeply southern liberal politicians and writers, like Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, et al. They sometimes have insight that northerners don’t.
thanks be to whomever that you wrote this this Sunday morning, the first pf per restricted society, terrifying, awful, that SCOTUS just made real. Brilliant. Beautiful writing.
Thank you. I couldn’t sleep and needed to “discharge” some of the anger and upset I’m feeling. I don’t think I could have gone on with the day until I did it.
yes I felt the same. glad you did it for us all. terrible day and going forward. jackals. jackasses , all
They have abandoned precedent and what can we do about it other than expanding? Each district should have representation, each territory or district that wants to become a State should be able to, DC & PR in point.
Yes. I was disappointed to hear Biden say he was opposed to expansion of the court. I understand that future considerations are a worry but we’re in crisis NOW.
I found this essay a helpful counterweight to the bulwark podcast I just listened to where people offered a lot of reasonable arguments in favor of the ruling. For what it’s worth-- I didn’t disagree with anything they said, and some of them had personal experience with affirmative action themselves, or with students who benefited from affirmative action but then had less-than-ideal academic experiences in the aftermath. (I’m not making the best case on their behalf; it was 45 minutes of informed intellectual discussion.)
But I also think it’s possible to appreciate the many arguments that affirmative action is morally complex and the results arguably mixed, etc., while still wondering if the supremes are being disingenuous in this and other cases. Particularly Thomas. I definitely have a problem with the weaselly responses about abortion and legal precedent that they gave in the confirmation process.
Also-- although I imagine most people would prefer not to have this said out loud-- I feel that the typical fetus would probably just write one of those essays that begins “a fetus’s right to life is a very, very, very important subject, one which is considered important by many many people, from many different locales. It is very impactful, and not just on fetuses, but also on the many other impacted people, or impactees, as they’re sometimes known. In France, they call them le impactée.”
Can’t stop laughing about “le impactee.”
I guess I should listen to the podcast. But I haven’t yet heard a good argument in favor of the ruling. To my mind, we’ve always had affirmative action, but “baked” into history, consciousness, etc. We just didn’t call it Affirmative Action, and the racial and gender biases were unconsciously perpetuated. No need for a law. (For a personal example, when I was in college thanks to a scholarship, the Dean requested that I relinquish it so it could go to a draftable male. He didn’t think there was anything questionable about the request—and neither did I!!) I think the big mistake was calling racial consideration “Affirmative”—which suggests to many people that it’s some kind of unjustified PLUS, when it’s actually a way to get closer to clean deliberations by counterbalancing the “baked in” tendencies. Liberals and “progressives” are not very smart about language—“pro-abortion” is another example that has haunted reproductive rights and justice for the decades since Roe v Wade. And of course the ridiculous “defund the police.” (BTW, re these personal tales of bad results from AA I don’t consider them a valid “argument” as for every one of them there’s a hundred of the opposite kind of experience. And I also knew several “legacy” students who had to drop out of school. And of course there’s the athletes….)
I should be clear, I’m on board with everything you’re saying. I’ve always been in favor of affirmative action, and any argument against it on moral or philosophical grounds is bullshit to me. For me the question is always “does it accomplish its goals,” or “does it exclusively accomplish good things.” I’m in the camp that would vote for it, but I’m open to a discussion about whether it works, especially long term. But my general attitude about what you could call the philosophical conservative position is that I’m not always convinced they are being honest about how fucked up things were before the liberal corrective was brought in, or how fucked up things still are.
This is always the thing that makes me ping pong back and forth; whether the left is being honest about the effectiveness of a policy, but weighed against whether the right is being honest about the need for the corrective.
Re: the left and language. For me the most common “own goal” of the left is to argue that policy should happen because it’s morally right, and any objection to the left wing policy is morally wrong. This argument, even though I usually agree with it, preaches to the choir, and tends to lock in polarization and push some independents to the right. My feeling about Obamacare, for example, is that the selling narrative should have been more about money than morality. I tend to be in favor of trying to be persuasive and practical, rather than self-righteous. But I’m also haunted by the idea that this approach could ultimately be naive. With today’s right the way it is, my position is harder to argue than ever.
A quick note on practical rather than self-righteous. The smartest thing our very smart former governor did (he’s also the father of our current governor, who is also a great guy--and a Democrat, but that’s a whole other story, how Kentucky came to have a Dem governor) was to call Obamacare “Kentucky Kynect.” It’s ugly but hiding the “Obama” part here in the heart of XXXXXXX (fill in whatever you hate most about the GOP today and it’ll work) made the AAC incredibly popular from the beginning. And Kentuckians need it.
I always love the deeply southern liberal politicians and writers, like Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, et al. They sometimes have insight that northerners don’t.
Great ideas. The " lack of standing " on the website case ... good grief. How did that get through?
Wonder if someone can legally challenge the Legacy admissions ... that includes George w Bush and Trump...
Well, these recent cases bring up many issues, and the outcomes could spiral any number of ways.