The diversity funding cut by the Florida Supreme Court recalled for me the SCOTUS decision which changed how Harvard and UNC were considering race in the context of admissions because of purported violations to the Equal Protection Clause. On the surface, while I may not agree with the result or policy, I can understand how the legal analysis could be drafted to yield such a ruling. To wit: if we’re not to treat any races differently – this means in a negative light as well as a positive light. However, the public policy behind such structures as so aptly discussed by RBG were to reverse racially motivated discrimination which had reigned since time immemorial.
Certainly, clever advocates can pull apart the text of case law and construe in any light that serves their argument. However, one can only wonder why judicial resources would or should be used to achieve an end which serves only to eradicate social progress. The same can be said for the Dobbs decision which overruled 50 years of progress achieved by Roe v. Wade. Why are we expending resources and brain power removing rights, walking back social justice? The country is screaming for attention in relation to poverty, immigration, education, and the opioid epidemic, and this is where our lawmakers are choosing to focus. That our governor “quietly” signed the 6 week abortion ban into effect in April of 2023 needs no explanation. Anytime the government or politicians do anything quietly speaks volumes.
You could argue that the transition from funding diversity initiative to membership outreach is really a distinction without difference on its face, but the growing trend in lawmaking reverting gender and racial equality is a bellwether of concerning lawmaking on the horizon, and as to how such decisions metastasize into other areas of [now] tenuous equality . Such decisions are permeating the country and permitting lawsuits for funding minority businesses and the like:
“The Fearless Fund, established in 2019 to bridge the gap in venture capital funding for women of color, is facing a lawsuit by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, who led the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions.
While the 11th Circuit ruling against the fund affects only Georgia, Alabama and Florida, investors and corporations running diversity investment programs elsewhere in the country are paying close attention to how this could expose them to similar lawsuits.”
Florida Bar Diversity Funding Cut by State Supreme Court (2) (bloomberglaw.com)
Inside the Decision: Here’s What the Supreme Court Said About Affirmative Action | News | The Harvard Crimson (thecrimson.com)
Ron DeSantis quietly signs Florida's 6-week abortion ban into law (nbcnews.com)
US Court Decision Casts Shadow on Diversity Venture Capital Funding (usnews.com)
I was born in 1956. I've lived through several important historical eras such as civil rights, reproductive rights, anti-Vietnam War, Watergate, the War on Drugs, the Global War on Terror, etc.
ReplyDeleteSome of these eras were marked by great progress (at least from my political perspective). Others were marked by retrenchment (again, from my political perspective). Yet I don't remember an era during my lifetime where the retrenchment has been as rapid or pronounced as during the last few years. Again, this is from my political perspective and others may disagree. But I see this as different in character from prior retrenchments for at least two reasons.
First, it is the court/legal system, not the political branches of government, which are being used to promote this retrenchment.
Second, there is an authoritarian undercurrent to this use of the law to take away rights we previously took for granted. People will say I am overstating the concern, but for me it too closely resembles the authoritarian movements in Europe in the 30's.
Hi Jonell,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful input. I agree that our country thrives when people of diverse backgrounds come together to share ideas. While defunding the Diversity and Inclusion Committee might initially seem like a step backward, I believe it aligns with the goal of promoting true equality. Committees like this, while well-intentioned, can sometimes hinder the selection of the best candidate for a role by emphasizing quotas over merit.
Our generation has the mindset and capability to move beyond the need for such committees, focusing instead on hiring the best candidate regardless of gender or race. Clients seek the most qualified professionals, whether doctors, lawyers, or financial advisors, without concern for meeting diversity quotas. We should emphasize creating opportunities and support systems for the youth to succeed from an early age. This approach fosters a culture of genuine meritocracy, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to excel based on their abilities and achievements.