Now, almost 50 years later, we can no longer ignore the obvious: that we failed to address many of the issues we faced in the ‘60s and’70s. We have spent an incredible amount of money; developed numerous social, economic, and educational programs; and otherwise tried whatever we thought would bring about major change with members on the lower end of the socioeconomical pyramid, and yet the results show our efforts have been underwhelming.
At the end of this year’s U.S. Supreme Court session, the highest ruling body in the land handed down a decision that put a major American retailer on the wrong side of the law. In 2008, a young Muslim woman interviewed for a sales position at Abercrombie & Fitch and, after being recommended for hire by the interviewer, was denied the position because she did not conform to the company’s “look policy,” which states certain rules on attire and appearance that its employees must follow. One
The spectacle of racist rancher Cliven Bundy and racist NBA owner Donald Sterling underscore why minority political and economic rights cannot rest solely upon majority rule. America is changing but it’s not changing fast enough to do away with key protections, and that’s what the Court seemingly did not get.Before turning to the way in which the race-infused antics of rancher Cliven Bundy and Los Angeles Clippers chief Donald Sterling upended the Supreme Court’s rationale of a race-free America, it’s important to quickly review the action the Court took.
Ranking California Democratic State Senator Leland Yee made the news twice in recent weeks. And both times it was for the wrong thing. The first time was for his FBI bust on charges of gun running and public corruption. The second reason he was in the news potentially has far more damaging consequences. Yee had been a strong supporter of Constitutional Amendment 5 that passed the California Senate last January. The bill would have given voters another chance to consider the use of race in college admissions.
America stands at a crossroads. We can take the high road toward equal access to high-quality public education, reaffirm our commitment to democratically elected public officials, end the failed war on drugs, recommit to the right of workers to bargain for better conditions, lower our dreadful rate of hyper-incarceration and implement the Affordable Care Act. Or we can travel in the opposite direction and move the nation away from equal opportunity and justice.
Current member of the House Paul Ryan offered this theory regarding the current economic battles facing our country: "Look, if we had a [Hillary] Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles as chief of staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now," Ryan said. "[But] that's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now." Both pronouncements raise questions that have been pondered by some political watchers since the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election: Would African Americans have fared better under a Hillary Clinton presidency than under Obama (and will they if she runs and wins in 2016)?
On October 10 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that could upend affirmative action policies nationwide. The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, is suing the state over her rejection for admission into the University of Texas, which considers race in allotting a percentage of available seats after the top 10 percent of high school seniors are admitted. Fisher, who is white, did not place in the top 10 percent. She contends the race-based portion of the institution’s admission policy is a violation of her constitutional rights
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a potentially landmark case that could end the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. The court ruled nine years ago that although quota systems in admissions processes at colleges and universities were unconstitutional, race can be used as a positive factor, just not a decisive factor. With this new case, the court’s previous ruling that race can be considered as part of the admissions process, is in danger of being overturned.
The antagonist of the film is shifted away from the clear and obvious villain and the film is punctuated with yet another overindulgent and unpleasant death scene. The film is a frustrating montage of violence whose story and comedy serves solely as a thinly veiled excuse to view and trivialize death. My dislike of this film is not merely a distaste for gore. I would argue I’m quite the fan of gory media, but this film simply lacks any of the tact that makes gory movies fun.
This example of getting along came in marked contrast to how some legislators in Congress (mis)behaved during President Biden’s February 7 State of the Union address. As Biden talked about how a minority of GOP members aimed to cut spending for the Social Security and Medicare programs, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and a few of her fellow Republicans interrupted the speech by booing, shouting out rude objections, and generally making fools of themselves.
