3 ms·

I can’t see past the paywall but it brings up the Supreme Court case. Two of the things that confused me about that case and how it would apply to the workplace

I can’t see past the paywall but it brings up the Supreme Court case. Two of the things that confused me about that case and how it would apply to the workplace: - it only excluded race as a consideration for admissions. Why race only? You can argue someone who is disabled who gets in might have “taken” a slot from a more qualified able-bodied person. Similarly, you can argue women athlete scholars of sufficiently unsupported sports are “taking” a slot from a more qualified man somewhere. It’s weird to make race the sole exception when the general argument applies. I wouldn’t even know how to apply this to work! - why did the Supreme Court make an exception for military school? All the logic applies except it’s okay if black/Hispanic people edge out white peoples to go to war? Does this mean also the diversity initiatives in government contractors/department of defense funded research is ok?

mjburgess 3y ago
The SC was only asked to consider race. It isnt writing legislation, it's asked a very specific question: is race-based admissions policy consistent with the existing body of interpretations of the constitution. It's answer: No.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lucozade 3y ago
> Why race only? Because it was only asked to consider race and only for admission to academic institutions. So that's what it did. > why did the Supreme Court make an exception for military school? Because the Solicitor General argued that the military could have considerations different to civilian academic institutions such as national security. And the Supreme Court agreed that they might so included the exception.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  If racial diversity is a national security implication why shouldn’t all educational facilities foster this? many labs take national defense money. It makes no sense to me to claim ensuring a diverse population is a matter of national security therefore we should make sure civilians don’t do it.

mjburgess 3y ago

The SC was only asked to consider race. It isnt writing legislation, it's asked a very specific question: is race-based admissions policy consistent with the existing body of interpretations of the constitution. It's answer: No.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lucozade 3y ago

> Why race only? Because it was only asked to consider race and only for admission to academic institutions. So that's what it did. > why did the Supreme Court make an exception for military school? Because the Solicitor General argued that the military could have considerations different to civilian academic institutions such as national security. And the Supreme Court agreed that they might so included the exception.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
If racial diversity is a national security implication why shouldn’t all educational facilities foster this? many labs take national defense money. It makes no sense to me to claim ensuring a diverse population is a matter of national security therefore we should make sure civilians don’t do it.