Tag Archives: affirmative action

Emil Amok’s Takeout: Emil talks Covid with a philosopher, Part 2; Propping up Small Business; and the Virtual Harvard Graduation and my Covid Commencement speech.

Hi Everyone!
This edition features my talk with Philosopher Theodore Schatzki about whether the U.S. is too big to fail, meaning the government should just go ahead and prop up all individuals and small businesses–just as it catered to big business since day one of the Trump administration. Also,  virtual graduation week is coming to Harvard. Here come more briefs in the big legal battle over Asian admissions.  But for you Classes of 2020 everywhere, my thoughts. No one invited me to speak like they did more than 40 years ago. That’s all right. Read it here.   And then listen to the podcast. Some reports say it will take $10 trillion to save everybody economically. But that’s better than letting a large fraction die, don’t you think?

Stay amok.

Read my columns at http://www.aaldef.org/blog

Emil Guillermo: Linsanity? That was his last contract for $30 million, Jeremy Lin, the Harvard baller, has a saner deal in Charlotte.

Jeremy Lin is probably happy to get out of LA and heading South. –to Charlotte.

I think he’ll have a breakthrough year,  playing for the love of the game again.

He’s a cultural hero, but he’s also still a good NBA player. In Charlotte, he’ll get a chance.

Read my NBCnews.com piece on Jeremy here.

I also see my latest column here: www.aaldef.org/blog

 

Emil Guillermo: The Asian American fault-line in California is spreading nationally…and turning into an Asian American civil war.

We saw it with last year’s debate on S-CA 5, the bill that would have restored affirmative action.

A group of Asian Americans were aggressively against affirmative action.

Traditional Asian American civil rights groups were for affirmative action.

The aggressive AAs won.

Check out how this is coming down nationally in my new column here:

It’s an Asian American Civil War.

 

 

New #SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action passes the buck and says let voters decide

The best possible spin on the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action in Michigan is that it doesn’t end affirmative action.

The decision did not say affirmative action was unconstitutional.

It merely narrowly decided that Prop.2, the Michigan initiative that voters passed to end race-based affirmative action in that state could be applied and that the equal protection clause was not violated.

It even sounds good. Let the voters decide, right?

OK, but why do we leave it to the voters to decide on that issue and that issue alone, and not on every single item that the University officials oversee?

Why take that power away from the professional educators?

As I went through the 6-2 opinion, I wasn’t that surprised that someone liberal like Breyer would vote with Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

Breyer stated he was for some forms of affirmative action, but didn’t see why the voters shouldn’t be allowed to weigh in.

But then there was Sotomayor’s lengthy dissent, which took the hardline, that this ruling indeed was setting up the situation where down the line we might  see the tyranny of the majority, and see the violation of minority rights under the equal protection clause.

That’s what was at stake here.

The majority of justices seemed happy enough to see the voters figure out where they stand on affirmative action.

After reading Sotomayor’s minority dissent, I’m not sure if that’s such a great thing.

We know how fair elections are now, with money driving everything.

That means we’ll probably see  a lot more SCA-5 style battles–until the court makes yet another ruling on the constitutionality of race based methods in university admissions.

UPDATE: 4/23/2014

It’s not surprising that the courts want to get out of the race business. Just like the legislatures have gotten out of legislating by relinquishing their role to the initiative process for the tough issues.

So if the elections are so important, why do electoral rights seem to be under attack? From the Voting Rights Act provisions, to campaign finance, has there been a more activist Supreme Court to reverse  the rights of minorities?

And now elections are the preferred way to settle racial fights? Sounds like SCOTUS just gave itself cover for its horrendous decisions, putting it all on the electorate.

 

 

CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog

LIKE  and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media

And FOLLOW  on  Twitter     http://www.twitter.com/emilamok