Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The plaintiff in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College presents its lawsuit as a bid to vindicate the rights of Asian American applicants to Harvard — though Harvard rejects the overwhelming majority of undergraduate applicants, the rejection rate among Asian Americans is especially high. But the implications of this suit go far beyond Harvard or the lawsuit’s implications for people of Asian descent.
The Harvard case is the first major affirmative action suit to reach the Supreme Court since Republicans gained a 6-3 majority on that Court, and it’s the first such case to reach the justices since Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018. Kennedy had unexpectedly cast the key vote to uphold an affirmative action program in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016).
I mean the conservative SCOTUS keeps upholding affirmative action policies so I'm not sure you're right.
You're still not telling us the compelling government interest in giving everyone except white people loan forgiveness. But hey, we'll learn it eventually. I bet it will be a masterpiece of bull$h!t.
okay. what is the 'compelling state interest' in discriminating against white farmers?
White farmers have had access to advantages that others weren't. USDA policies have resulted in black farmers losing their lands steadily over the generations, while white farmers have gained land, proportionate to their demographic share.
You're still not telling us the compelling government interest in giving everyone except white people loan forgiveness. But hey, we'll learn it eventually. I bet it will be a masterpiece of bull$h!t.
The compelling governmental interest is to end racist policies it helped propagate. That's literally the easiest part of the analysis.
The hard part is the "narrowly tailored" aspect. That's where policies fail in courts.
White farmers have had access to advantages that others weren't. USDA policies have resulted in black farmers losing their lands steadily over the generations, while white farmers have gained land, proportionate to their demographic share.
So how about the Alaskan Native and Pacific Islander farmers? I read about ten paragraphs of that article that you posted, and it hasn't proven what you said yet. I'm betting that it never does.
White farmers have had access to advantages that others weren't. USDA policies have resulted in black farmers losing their lands steadily over the generations, while white farmers have gained land, proportionate to their demographic share.
i can't read that article, apparently i've already had my 3 free ones. i find it difficult to accept that the best answer to racism is .... wait for it...
So how about the Alaskan Native and Pacific Islander farmers? I read about ten paragraphs of that article that you posted, and it hasn't proven what you said yet. I'm betting that it never does.
Agree. Disparate outcome doesn't prove racial discrimination. Current USDA rules are racially discriminatory toward whites on their face.
Why are these good conservative farmers not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps on their own instead of counting on a government welfare program to help them out? Weird.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
