fart@sh.itjust.works to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoUS supreme court strikes down affirmative actionwww.cnn.comexternal-linkmessage-square139fedilinkarrow-up195arrow-down16
arrow-up189arrow-down1external-linkUS supreme court strikes down affirmative actionwww.cnn.comfart@sh.itjust.works to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square139fedilink
minus-squarederf82@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down3·1 year agoNeither is ok. But only one likely violates the constitution. Congress could make legacy admissions illegal if they wanted to.
minus-squareDonjuanme@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·1 year agoCongress could’ve made affirmative action illegal if they wanted to? But only one side works as the majority’s dog whistle.
minus-squarederf82@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·1 year agoYes. Even noted red state California (/s) voted in a referendum to make the practice illegal.
minus-squarethe_accidental_mind@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoI really appreciate this take, because it reminded me that I can always call my congressman (or at least their office) and voice my opinion to ears that might be able to do something about it.
Neither is ok. But only one likely violates the constitution. Congress could make legacy admissions illegal if they wanted to.
Congress could’ve made affirmative action illegal if they wanted to?
But only one side works as the majority’s dog whistle.
Yes. Even noted red state California (/s) voted in a referendum to make the practice illegal.
I really appreciate this take, because it reminded me that I can always call my congressman (or at least their office) and voice my opinion to ears that might be able to do something about it.