The last standing racist and segregation policy in the US has come to an end.

IN 1980

In 1980, white residents comprised almost 80% of the national population

TODAY IT'S 60%

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...n-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/

 

OK... So what? Even at 'only' 60%, which I question, it's still an overwhelming majority compared to any other race, and therefore you would expect to see more white folks in any truly random selection of people. Whether or not that is true for non-random selections depends on many factors, one of which is interest... I race virtual cars online for fun, a hobby that is almost exclusively male. Not because women are not welcome, it's just most are like my wife... They have zero interest in participating, even if it were free and given to them.

 

For all of this so called oppression(note that your links 2018/2020 are just before the mid-term and presidential elections, not without coincidence). African-American participation in elections has increased!

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...out-extended-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups/

And what does this messaging serve? It doesn't serve national unity, it doesn't serve the voting bloc in question. But it does serve team Democrat.
Team Democrat is willing to sabotage any and all efforts of the American People coming together, in order to win elections.

As was the case then, now and forever. There's not a speck of national spirit inside the hollowed shell of the Democratic Party.

 

DEI Laws Are Meaningless Without Enforcement: To stop woke discrimination, states must create anti-DEI statutes with teeth.

'They need to include statutory attorney’s fees, to encourage plaintiffs’ lawyers to take the cases.'

'Whether it is the new constitutional bans on affirmative action in admissions, long established (but oft-ignored) bans on racial preferences in hiring, or laws prohibiting DEI practices, history teaches that absent concrete legal consequences for violating the law, university administrators will simply wink at the legislature while continuing to follow what they consider to be the path of moral righteousness.'

Some Solutions:

• 'Mandatory suspension / termination of employment. A finding of a second violation required permanent termination, including loss of tenure, with the violator ineligible for employment by any state university.
• Individual liability. Make those who knowingly violate the law (either directly or by failing to stop it) or conspire to violate the law subject to individual liability for statutory damages, with no legal immunity and no reimbursement from their employer. Imposed individual liability of at least $10,000 for each violation of the law, plus attorneys’ fees.
• Prohibitions on accreditor conduct. Another loophole in some DEI laws that universities appear ready to exploit involves activities they claim are necessary to obtain or preserve their accreditation. Anti-DEI laws should thus make it clear not only that schools are not authorized to violate the law in the name of accreditation, but that accreditors and the individuals acting for them within the state are also prohibited from asking or requiring schools to violate applicable state law (with statutory damages against accreditors and their employees if they do so).
• Private rights of action. Who enforces the law? Absent meaningful penalties on the individuals who fail to do so, expecting universities to police their own in this area is delusional. That problem could be solved by enlisting members of the public to serve as private attorneys general, by granting individuals standing to bring private lawsuits in the state’s name to prosecute violations of the law and recover the damages provided by the law and/or to recoup illegal expenditures. (Federal qui tam law provides a model.)
• Perjury prosecutions. In order to obtain federal funding and eligibility for their students’ loans, universities have long been required to certify (i.e., have someone sign under penalty of perjury) that they do not violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Similarly, anti-DEI laws could require certification by each university system’s governing board that their institutions are in compliance with such laws as a condition precedent to receiving state funds. Assuming the political will exists to prosecute violators, this would create a strong incentive for officials to look carefully for continuing DEI activity.'

 

No, it makes it so you cant claim white males "collectively" benefited from slavery.

 

Utter nonsense. There is more disparity in power and wealth WITHIN the white population, than there is between black and white populations.

Actually most blacks with power and wealth today achieved both without ANY beneficial affirmative action from the government.

 

So you have no problem with republicans suppressing votes. Got it.

 

ON NOTICE: Follow anti-discrimination ruling or get sued, group warns 200 law schools.

JFK was the first to use Affirmative Action in federal regulation and it meant 'don't prefer or act adversely to ANYONE.' The Left as they do, changed the meaning of the phrase to mean 'give preference to POC and act adversely to Jews, Whites and Asians.'

The Court finally returned the nation to the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

The constitutionalist legal group “sent a demand letter to the deans of every law school in the United States, demanding that they cease discriminating based on race and sex in student admissions, faculty hiring, and law-review membership and article selection,”

' @America1stLegal sent a legal threat letter to every law school in America: comply with the Supreme Court ruling on “affirmative action” — or see you in court. If you’re a victim of discrimination call us at 1-877-AFL-5454'

• “It is unlawful to flout the Constitution and the unambiguous command of Title VI by admitting students with lower LSAT scores and academic credentials than those demanded of others based on their race, sex, or national origin,”
  
• “It is unlawful for your school to violate Title VI, Title VII, and Title IX in its faculty hiring by discriminating in favor of female and minority faculty candidates at the expense of others,” the group wrote. “It is unlawful for your school to allow their student-run journals to give discriminatory preferences to women and minorities in membership and article selection.”
  
• “Any such regime—for example, relying on biography over qualifications—to achieve desired racial outcomes is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, and you will face legal repercussions accordingly,”

 

Nothing could be more ignorant than what you just wrote. In the future, try to be more competent. Again, voting participation increased from 2018-2020 and even the mid terms. Here's a shocker, maybe people just don't want to vote(I know, that's a very hard concept to grasp), here's an even harder one to grasp: Maybe, just maybe they want to vote but not for the Democratic candidate on the ticket.

Even more of a shocker.

This claim of suppressing votes is a constant excuse and a way to act as though there's some oppressed minority in this country. Meanwhile, the Democrats could not appeal to these disaffecteds, because that would actually require admitting something's wrong!

Useless party, absolutely ****ing useless.

 

Since you didn't say that you were against republicans suppressing votes I of course assume you are for it.

 

I can't be against something that materially doesn't exist.

 

Sure

Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.

Classic clip from 1980. : "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."




In SCOTUS Arguments, Republicans Admit Voter Suppression Laws Like HB 531 Are About Preventing “A Competitive Disadvantage…To Democrats”
https://fairfight.com/in-scotus-arg...ting-a-competitive-disadvantage-to-democrats/

The GOP’s increasingly blunt argument: It needs voting restrictions to win


...A growing number of GOP officials have in recent weeks and months justified the voter restrictions their party is pursuing by pointing to the supposed electoral benefit. If there’s a difference between last time around and today, it’s that these ones cut considerably higher profiles.

A decade ago, Pennsylvania’s Republican state Senate leader and state party chairman both pointed to the state’s new voter ID law as helping their party win the presidential election in their state. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) did the same thing in Wisconsin in both 2016 and in 2012. And after that 2012 election, former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer claimed his party was indeed trying to limit early voting to suppress Democratic votes.


...In 2019, while debating a Democratic proposal to make Election Day a holiday and prevent purges of voter rolls, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the idea a “power grab” by Democrats.


By early 2020, with congressional Democrats pushing for $400 million to fund expanded mail-in balloting amid the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump again pointed to higher turnout kneecapping his party. He said such a thing would lead to “levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nt-argument-it-needs-voting-restrictions-win/


NO PAYWALL

https://archive.ph/WaWHD

Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country

“We did it quickly and we did it quietly,” said the executive director of Heritage Action.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/

Wisconsin Republicans caught cheering voter suppression



In leaked audio, a top Trump adviser said the Republican party has 'traditionally' relied on voter suppression


https://www.businessinsider.com/lea...s-rely-voter-suppression-justin-clark-2019-12

 

It alarms me that this fight against racism against Asian people is being framed as right wing. The rise of China and looming increase of conflict between east and west is going to predictably cause anti-asian racism on the right, and we need the left ready to fight against that, not lean into it.

Equating that to race is racist and counterproductive. If you want diverse experience and knowledge, there is no rational reason to use race as a proxy for it.

If that was an academic statement based on research, they should be able to point to it. It instead appears to be a political position.

What of when the policy was still that black people and women are not allowed? Was government not right to dictate against that?

 

That is true. However it is still racist. Fighting racism with more racism is not a good approach. You need to treat everyone the same to avoid racism. It is small step in that direction.

 

He will tell you that "racism" and "racial discrimination" against people are different by his preferred definitions, as if that somehow makes the latter more acceptable.

 

I just call them as I see them regardless of semantics.

 

The left is totally opposed to racism, including of Asians. I don't know where you got this idea.

As for China, it is Trump who spent his entire administration increasing conflict with China, perhaps most notably with tariffs and his campaign of Asian hate over COVID - which led to violence in America.

Again, you really need to explain what you're talking about.

Again, please identify what you're talking about.

 

Voter participation has increased in the last 3 elections(2018 mid-terms, 2020 elections and 2022 mid-terms). I already gave the links showing that. ,This is the perfect use of the meme "I substitute your BS for reality".

People can vote in this country, and they can vote freely. They can also choose not to vote. Stop fearmongering and bitching, and get on the phone lines and convince your neighbors why they should advance the progressive cause. You got this.

 

This isn't about the problem of the level of voluntary participation.

It's about the problem of actions taken in order to suppress democracy as a partisan political tactic.

Do you believe that suppressing representation of citizens you don't agree with is a valid component of democracy?

 

I am getting it from your posts above, in which you are endorsing racial discrmination against asian applicants.

You speak of racial diversity and then equate that to diversity of knowledge and experience. These are not the same thing. It is incredibly and dangerously racist to infer or presume that they are.

You say the government shouldn't interfere with policy set by the school, because the school knows best, so I asked if that's your view of when the government intervened and outlawed race and gender exclusion of black people and women.

 

What is this supposed to mean exactly? And what does it have to do with race?

If you mean we shouldn't suppress people because of their views, then I agree with you. What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

Nope. I've NEVER done that. Nor would I.

There are all kinds of diversity. Our universities believe that the quality of their product is improved by ensuring that there are many kinds of diversity, not just racial diversity.

Describing what these schools are doing as "exclusion" is just false.

 

North Carolina Republicans went through a redictricting process recently where one objective was minimizing black representation at the state level.

The USSC struck that down.

Do you believe North Carolina Republicans should have been allowed to use this tactic in assuring less representation by those they don't want represented?

 

Nope, its discrimination.

 

As stated before, I don't think it's happening. Even more to the point, I don't think any political party is entitled to x votes, both parties(and in the ideal world, more parties) have to prove they're worth my vote.