A Fantastic Week for Conservatives

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

20 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    We are not a colorblind society. We are rolling back any legal framework that would have made us colorblind. And being colorblind was never the end goal.

    When Dr. King talked about his children being judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin , he was talking about a world where the Black experience was as valid, as uplifted, as equal in its economic and educational outcome as the white experience. Not that we were colorblind. He wanted us to see and value the richness of culture and history underlying the experience.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      “We are rolling back any legal framework that would have made us colorblind.”

      By making it illegal to look at color?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        By making it illegal for all colors to count equally.

        We started by eviscerating the Voting Rights Act. And this decision – as the 25 year California experiment clearly shows – means FEWER Black and Latino persons advancing through university education. On the basis of a decision that takes the “Model Minority” myth and exaggerates it beyond belief.

        The white, “conservative” backlash will do nothing to strengthen minority success in this country.Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    If “ruling on the facts” includes a ruling on imaginary harms done by fictitious individuals, I’m not sure this was a bad week for the ‘what has conservatism ever conserved’ folks.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Exactly. I thought it was to make up evidence and use it in court. Apparently not when you get the SCOTUS ruling you paid for.Report

    • David Thornton in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Take a look at my article from today to address the fallacy in the comment above. Rulings on re-enforcement lawsuits are not unconstitutional.Report

      • Philip H in reply to David Thornton
        Ignored
        says:

        Take out a “request” from two gay men. Insert an interracial couple. Would her position still be protected speech? See back in the day, whites used a LOT of religious imagery and language to oppose interracial marriage.

        And interestingly – perhaps even ironically – Justice Thomas doesn’t just want to protect this woman’s speech, he wants to revisit Loving, presumably with an eye to tossing it. Which of course would make his own marriage no longer legal . . .Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Which of course would make his own marriage no longer legal . . .

          Lots of wrinkles to that. Presumably control goes back to the states. Despite Loving being a Virginia case, it is unlikely that today’s Virginia will make their marriage illegal. I don’t know where they got married, but it also seems unlikely that states would be allowed to go back and invalidate long-standing marriages.

          I can’t ever shake the feeling that some of the justices think they’ll shift power to the states, and don’t mind if some states do sh*tty things with that power, because the justices don’t live and won’t ever have to live in “those” states.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain
            Ignored
            says:

            You may be right about thinking they won’t have to live with their decisions. Still, we live in a world where Donald Trump was actually President for four years, and Abortion has been effectively outlawed in half our states. We are way past the point where predicting what state could do has any merit, since its clear states will do the sh!tty stuff when given the chance..Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to David Thornton
        Ignored
        says:

        I didn’t say it wasn’t constitutional to rule on an imaginary harm done by a fictitious person.

        I said it was further fuel for the fire of “what has conservatism conserved” argument. Specifically, that conservatives aren’t looking to defend themselves from harm, but rather, to use the power of the state to enforce a social order to their liking.

        What conservatism is conserving seems like a state-enforced caste system.Report

  3. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    I will write a piece about 303 Creative under separate cover.

    I note here that I am much less optimistic about both the short- and long-term impacts of the Havard and UNC cases abolishing affirmative action. In the short run, we will certainly see universities looking to maintain diversity within the student body through means that are not race-explicit. As they should — a diverse student body offers students a qualitatively different educational experience than a monochromatic one; people of different racial backgrounds experience the social environment of the United States differently from one another and it is particularly important that members of the majority, favored group learn what those other experiences are like if we are to move towards our shared aspirational goal of meaningfully real equality.

    But if you think that challenges to admissions practices are going to come to an end once and for all now that these cases have given conservatives their long-anticipated victory against affirmative action, you are hopelessly naive.

    One of the likeliest ways for a public school like UNC to reach towards diversity, for instance, would be to re-interpret its mandate. UNC is charged with providing higher education to some percentage of North Carolina’s graduating high school students. Let’s say that’s 10% although I don’t know if that’s exactly the right number. You could say that means the 10% of students who score highest on some multiple of grade point average and SAT score in North Carolina. But you could also say that means the top 10% of students in each individual school in North Carolina. That’d probably diversify the student body there even further.

    And if UNC did that, you’d better believe that some privileged parent of some privileged kid would come along and say “This is an obvious workaround of the no-more-affirmative-action rule,” because it would be an obvious workaround of the no-more-affirmative-action rule, and it would result in the kid who comes from a privileged class not getting in to UNC and that spot instead going to a student with a lower GPA-SAT multiple. Boom. Now we’re challenging every pro-diversity rule as “affirmative action by proxy,” and that’s what the future looks like. Carve that in stone, it’s going to happen.

    So I don’t see this case as alleviating racial tensions vis-a-vis college admissions. It’s going to aggravate them. The problem for the conservative activists who conceive of and fund and staff and populate these efforts to change who gets access to higher education is not methodology. The problem is the result.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t remember the details, but you probably want to look up the case involving UT-Austin admissions. Texas had gone to a scheme where being in the top 10% in your Texas HS graduating class got you admission to the UT system. IIRC, not necessarily to your first choice of UT schools. I vaguely recall that the young woman involved in the case had been advised by at least one guidance counselor that if she wanted into UT-Austin, it might be better if she attended a different high school for her last couple of years because she would be much higher in the class standings there.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *