[blind-democracy] Re: FW: Debating Diversity

  • From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:53:07 -0500

I've read sseveral articles about this guyand all of these cases that he is
bringing to the Supreme Court, and it seems to me that I read that all of
them are on behalf of a particular group or organization. I can't remember
which one, but it was a right wing organization.

Miriam

________________________________

From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:34 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] FW: Debating Diversity



Hi all,

This piece features current Supreme court cases. The first is the
affirmative action case well-documented in a recent piece sent by Miriam.
But the second involves how Congressional districts are drawn. The cases
have at least two things in common. They're being considered by the Supreme
Court and they were both enabled by Edward Blum. Seems to me, someone ought
to get Blum a KKK outfit for Christmas.

Bob Hachey



From: The Progress Report [mailto:progress@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:01 PM
To: bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Debating Diversity



Problems viewing this email? View
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181247&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=31561bc4193c4b70a7
bf061a1048ac20> it in your web browser.

Image removed by sender. The Progress Report Banner
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=97100&elq=7898a6e5
73e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e11127d3fc404b1b901
78a0d7592bbcb>



Debating Diversity


Dec 10, 2015 | By CAP Action War Room
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=90725&elq=7898a6e5
73e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=b54c45f3540a4810ace
59afa1545877d>


The Supreme Court Argues Affirmative Action And Redistricting


Amidst national conversation about policies-from immigration reform to the
refugee entry process-that could impact the diversity of our nation as a
whole, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on three cases this week that
could impact the diversity of some of our most important institutions.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in Fisher v. University of
Texas, a case that could potentially end affirmative action
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181248&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=b787c7f062f14399ae
936ad8981d2fd8> in public university admissions. The day before, the Court
heard two cases
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181249&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=67946b06ced441208a
763b0e98310c58> about redistricting, one of which could lead to an even
whiter, less diverse pool of elected officials than we already have. Here's
what you need to know about these cases:

Affirmative Action
Affirmative action has had its fair share of court battles-this is actually
the second time the Court has heard Fisher v. University of Texas. The case
was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who believes the University
of Texas denied her admission
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181250&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=5af646d66e3b4bc2ae
03083ecbbbb072> in 2008 because of her race. And in its 2013 Fisher
decision, the Court avoided taking a strong stance on the issue and asked
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reexamine the case. The Fifth Circuit
ruled again in favor of the University of Texas' affirmative action policy,
bringing the case back to the Supreme Court this session.

In yesterday's argument Justice Scalia gave a particularly disappointing and
shocking argument against affirmative action: "Most of the black scientists
in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They
come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're begin pushed
ahead in classes that are too fast for them," he said
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181250&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=27c17aae51cd49129c
890229b7760633> . Scalia also argued
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181251&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=9e079fef3772407e93
130545a6105840> that students of color are being "pushed into schools that
are too advanced for them" because of affirmative action policies.

Justice Scalia's comments don't dignify a response. It should be no argument
that diversity in the classroom benefits all students, as well as their
communities, the workforce, and the country as a whole. This case could
spell the end of all affirmative action policies at public colleges and
universities across the country, something the conservative Roberts court
has long been expected to do
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181249&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=b107ffeeb3c94d679a
5f4e13d956b0ff> , or it could be sent back to a lower court once again.

Redistricting
The other major issue on the Supreme Court's schedule this week was
redistricting. On Tuesday, the court heard two cases
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181249&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=e221a986b64249c588
3928d83d82c5b4> about redistricting that have the potential to throw the
redistricting process of many states into chaos and change the racial and
ethnic balance of congressional delegations.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, House seats are allocated based on the total
population, not just eligible voters. That means children, non-citizens,
disenfranchised former offenders, and others still count in determining the
number of representatives each state gets in Congress. This practice will
not change, no matter what happens in Evenwel v. Abbot.

The plaintiffs in Evenwel, however, ask the Court to change the way district
lines are drawn within a state. If they prevail, non-voters will no longer
count when states draw these lines. In states such as Texas, where there is
are large non-citizen Latino communities, the Evenwel plaintiffs' rule will
effectively transfer power away from these Latino communities and toward
white voters. In many states, it could also turn redistricting into a
logistical nightmare, because states will have to redraw their district
lines unless children who are too young to vote are evenly distributed
throughout the state.

This rule cuts against the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is hard
to square with American history. As Justice Ginsberg put the implications of
this shift into perspective in yesterday's arguments when she asked whether
it was wrong for women
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181252&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=ffad77015f944ae992
b568c764fa32f8> , before they could vote, to be counted for the purposes of
drawing districts given that "they were not eligible voters."

This case is the godchild of Edward Blum, a conservative activist
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=181253&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=6622b36d48ca49fdb9
b25c1f168d3d6b> who has also been behind other racially-charged challenges
to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. Aside from the racial
implications, this case would also cause logistical nightmares for anyone in
charge of redrawing legislative maps.

BOTTOM LINE: While presidential candidates are getting a lot more attention,
they are not the only ones currently debating policies that could have a
significant impact on access to opportunity in the United States. The
Supreme Court is gearing up for another year of decisions that could have
significant ramifications on the civil rights and representation of
Americans. Diversity matters; we hope that the highest court will agree.

Like CAP Action on Facebook
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=127825&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=7730bdcf9fc140468b
4dc81e970d7ba5> and follow us on Twitter
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=170923&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=8ab2b4174e36456481
09bb9102c1a677> !


Manage Email Options
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=49051&elq=7898a6e5
73e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=79a634aac6ba44d69ce
95667dc5eb3c2> | Privacy Policy
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=145009&elq=7898a6e
573e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=eeb95f3bfe3a4650a3
064af74d19836f> | Unsubscribe
<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er?s=785&lid=90575&elq=7898a6e5
73e84f2cb5ce8ca976c88ef5&elqaid=28459&elqat=1&elqTrackId=3ad7eaebc48242eb88e
31fd35d289949>

THINKPROGRESS | Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20005





Image removed by sender.



Other related posts: