Last week, the Supreme Court handed down, as they usually do as the term comes to an end, a flurry of highly anticipated major decisions. Two of them made a lot of news: one effectively ended affirmative action in American higher education, and another ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.
During the whole lead-in I was thinking, "please let Sarah be a guest here so she can shoot down all these silly opinions from these TV anchors." YAY!
This was a good episode. I think I'm continually disappointed by people that care nothing for process and only want their outcomes. Harry just sounds like he wants the power to tell people how to live, which is sadly unsurprising. When Bari asked "good or bad decision" and Sarah said, "it's the right decision" ... chef's kiss.
I think it's telling that one guest, when asked whether the Harvard/UNC decision was a "good decision or bad decision," replied essentially, "I don't agree with it. Bad decision."
And this person is supposedly an expert. Supreme Court decisions aren't about what we want or what makes us comfortable.
Also disappointed that so much of the discussion revolved around how to get more low-achieving students into college in the name of diversity. How about we start addressing why only a system that minimizing academic achievement in an academic endeavor is seen as the only way to get students of color into college? It seems to be that the real racism here is the racism of low expectation for certain groups.
I thought this was a fantastic discussion. Would love to listen to a similar discussion on the ethics scandals of the Supreme Court. I really appreciate how the FP takes out the alarmism of the issue.
As always...you delved into a difficult subject and taught us all how to appreciate well articulated, diverse opinions. Thank you.
Bari, I thought this was a great episode. I feel more informed for having listened to it. And I don’t know if I’m hormonal rn or what, but I teared up at the very end just bc I found the whole conversation so refreshing and feel like this is what media-types should be striving for. Thanks!
It’s racist to discriminate against whites and Asians . Discrimination against any race is racist . U cannot pick a favored race. W affirmative action many minorities that’s get in to these difficult schools will end up w debt and no degree . Pick based on merit only . Two wrongs don’t make a right . Past discrimination doesn’t mean we need more discrimination
Two Harvard Law grads, and one Harvard undergrad. Truly diverse panel, Bari
No I can see that argument. However if the signs said "the Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality" or something which is just a fact, how is that compelled speech? I mean I'm imagining a wedding website and it probably says things like "x and y are getting married" and "share in the loveof blahblahblah". Is that considered compelled speech? Cause it's actually what's happening under US law, these people are being married. I understand it's not what you might want as a Catholic but I just don't see the case there for compelled speech. How is this not just a carte blanche for not taking things that go against my political opinions? Like, i don't do websites for professional women cause I don't think women should be allowed to work.
Great episode. The ONLY nit I had with it was Jeannie Suk Gersen kept casually referring to Asians as being "overrepresented". I get that in the context of the decision, it's a matter of fact, but as an argument, the fact that Asians are overrepresented even with affirmative action headwinds suggests that affirmative action is not broadly needed and I would have to hear Jeannie explain how Asians came to be overrepresented and how that strengthens or weakens the rationale for Affirmative Action.
Thank you for bringing back the debate and discussion! Will shout this out in our newsletter...
The state has no legitimate interest with whom I choose to do business. It has no interest in FORCING the redress of past discrimination, only maintenance of current interactions with those whom they DO have an interest if taxpayers are funding. The state should have NO part in sanctioning or approving civil union (marriage) or writing tax code that gives preference to any such union.
I really was rather disappointed with what I experienced as little pushback to the gay wedding website ruling. I understand and appreciate the free speech argument, but I just do not see how someone can argue that writing speech such as "we are getting married" or things like "x and X share their love" or whatever can be the object of a religious exemption (all the counterexamples were crass hate-speech -nazis, segregation...-; they are not adequate counterexamples in my mind at all). These people are not getting married in the Catholic church. The state is marrying them. I see how you may have an opinion about that, but I do not see how it collides with your faith in any way, unless you believe the state is Catholic itself or that it should be held to Catholic standards. It does seem to boil down to you not agreeing; I would hope that the bar to say "I cannot do this out of a deep-seated belief" were frankly higher. In my mind this opens horrible doors for odious versions of religious exceptions to be argued. I guess we will see.