Conservative group behind Aff. Action lawsuit is now going after BW targeted VC fund/* program ended in settlement

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Gritsngravy]

We've got nearly a century worth of post-Civil Rights Bill anti-black legislation and local ordinances, none of which say "black people are not allowed to do xyz." And yet the legislation and ordinances have been used to target black people in very specific ways because the people enforcing them simply target black people. Pretty effective. Yet instead of taking a note from that, we constantly doing dumb shyt that is easy to target via the courts.

Want to fund black businesses as a private corporation or business? Start a fund, put a black person in charge, and make sure 80% of the money goes to black businesses. Hell, more than 80%. But of course that means you can't run ads seeking black customers by pointing out how much you support black businesses. This is advertising. It's not change, it's not effective.

The funny thing is that democrats understand this when it comes to...HUD. There's always some black person in charge of HUD, funneling money to some poor black people. Yet there's never a black Secretary of...Agriculture. Biden tried to pass a bill to get black farmers paid, after decades of neglect, not getting loans, not getting loans forgiven, etc. White farmers sued claiming discrimination and it's still hung up in court. It'll likely NEVER come to pass. You know how you fix that? By appointing people at the USDA who are there to specifically push loans, forgiveness etc through for black farmers. Doesn't mean rejecting white farmers in the process. You need to help some white farmers at the same time...but all you do is tilt the percentages our way. Instead of 80-20 white farmers getting help compared to black farmers, you reverse it. Hell you could do 70-30 if you're scared.

The funny thing is that if you did exactly what I said and started legitimately helping black people, folks on the Coli would be mad because the bill isn't named "The Help Black People Bill That Only Helps Black People."

But isn’t the whole point is we don’t necessarily get positions like that to help ourselves, not saying what u saying is wrong but I thought the whole point of these bills and policies is to train black people those types of positions and make sure people get those positions and it seems like gov never really held up they end of the bargain

 

[SupaDupaFresh]

US judge refuses to block venture capital fund's grants for Black women

A federal judge in Atlanta on Tuesday rejected a bid to bar a small venture capital fund from awarding grants to businesses run by Black women, in a case brought by the anti-affirmative activist behind the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious college admissions policies.

www.reuters.com

US judge refuses to block venture capital fund's grants for Black women
Nate RaymondSeptember 26, 20235:37 PM EDTUpdated 7 hours ago
Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum speaks to reporters at the "Rally for the American Dream-Equal Education Rights for All" in Boston
Sept 26 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Atlanta on Tuesday rejected a bid to bar a small venture capital fund from awarding grants to businesses run by Black women, in a case brought by the anti-affirmative activist behind the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious college admissions policies.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash during a hearing denied a request by Edward Blum's American Alliance for Equal Rights for a preliminary injunction blocking Fearless Fund from considering applications for grants only from businesses led by Black women.

Blum's group had asked the judge to temporarily block the Fearless Fund's "racially exclusive program" while the court considered the merits of the case. The judge said he would issue a written decision later.

With a Saturday deadline approaching for this year's grant applications, Blum's organization quickly filed an emergency appealasking the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent Fearless Fund from picking a grant winner.

It said Thrash's decision rested on a single ground: That Fearless' charitable grant program was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, a holding that Blum's group said "would obliterate nondiscrimination law."

Fearless Fund founders Arian Simone and Ayana Parsons in a joint statement said they were pleased that Thrash rejected Blum's attempt to shut down their grant program, part of their initiative to address ongoing racial disparities in the venture capital arena.

"We realize there is still a long road ahead, but today we remain fearless and steadfast in creating pathways that empower women of color entrepreneurs," Simone and Parsons said.

The lawsuit is one of three that Blum's Texas-based group had filed since August challenging grant and fellowship programs designed by the venture capital fund and two law firms to help give Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority groups greater career opportunities.

A different group founded by Blum, who is white, was behind the litigation that led to the June decision, powered by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority, declaring race-conscious student admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina unlawful.

According to the Fearless Fund, businesses owned by Black women in 2022 received less than 1% of the $288 billion that venture capital firms deployed.

The fund aims to address that disparity, and counts JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N), Bank of America (BAC.N) and MasterCard (MA.N) as investors. It has invested nearly $27 million in 40 businesses led by minority women since its founding in 2019.

It also provides grants, and Blum's lawsuit took aim at its Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which awards Black women who own small businesses $20,000 in grants and other resources to grow their businesses.

The lawsuit alleges that the program's criteria illegally excludes applicants who are white, Asian or other races, in violation of Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

That federal law was enacted after the U.S. Civil War to guarantee all people the same right to make and enforce contracts "as is enjoyed by white citizens."

While the law was adopted with formerly enslaved Black people in mind, courts have interpreted it for decades as protecting white people from racial discrimination as well.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Acquire Licensing Rights

The judge that stopped this BTW, Thomas Thrash, is a Democrat. Because both sides....Because what has voting done for us?



Edit: saw the updates. Wow.

 

[Piff Perkins]

But isn’t the whole point is we don’t necessarily get positions like that to help ourselves, not saying what u saying is wrong but I thought the whole point of these bills and policies is to train black people those types of positions and make sure people get those positions and it seems like gov never really held up they end of the bargain

You're not wrong. My question is two fold: why don't we normally get those positions, and when we do get them...why is this never a priority (outside of HUD)? To Biden's credit, the second in command at the Department of Agriculture was a black woman (Jewel Bronaugh) before she resigned to take care of her family. At some point in the future, she's probably going to get nominated to lead that department. When that happens though...is she going to focus on helping black farmers? Hell, will there even be black farmers left by then.

How does power work? You get on, put your people in place, and then focus on helping people in your community. Black people have done this for decades on the local and state level, so it's not that we are inexperienced or have never done xyz before. I understand that federal departments have to help everyone, and "everyone" often means a lot of white people solely due to demographics. However, the black population is so small (relatively) in this country that you can make substantial changes without causing a stir. Less than 2% of US farms are black owned. It wouldn't be hard at all to reach a sizable amount of those owners within a 4 year span (Biden), or an 8 year span (Obama) if there was interest in doing it.

 

[Gritsngravy]

You're not wrong. My question is two fold: why don't we normally get those positions, and when we do get them...why is this never a priority (outside of HUD)? To Biden's credit, the second in command at the Department of Agriculture was a black woman (Jewel Bronaugh) before she resigned to take care of her family. At some point in the future, she's probably going to get nominated to lead that department. When that happens though...is she going to focus on helping black farmers? Hell, will there even be black farmers left by then.

How does power work? You get on, put your people in place, and then focus on helping people in your community. Black people have done this for decades on the local and state level, so it's not that we are inexperienced or have never done xyz before. I understand that federal departments have to help everyone, and "everyone" often means a lot of white people solely due to demographics. However, the black population is so small (relatively) in this country that you can make substantial changes without causing a stir. Less than 2% of US farms are black owned. It wouldn't be hard at all to reach a sizable amount of those owners within a 4 year span (Biden), or an 8 year span (Obama) if there was interest in doing it.

Sometimes I think people are provided with those positions with the understanding that u not doing no tricks/loopholes to substantially help black people aka former slaves, (not to get too conspiracy theorists but I just want to point out the president didn’t have a black American legacy technically), I believe it’s a unspoken understanding that the former slave class will always have a ceiling and the gov will not contribute any further than they have to do for that ceiling to be broke

In theory all the things black people did get done back in the day the gov really had no choice or the country was going to fall if they allowed that shyt to continue widespread

But Maybe these black people in these positions not afraid of the consequences of not helping black people

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You're not wrong. My question is two fold: why don't we normally get those positions, and when we do get them...why is this never a priority (outside of HUD)? To Biden's credit, the second in command at the Department of Agriculture was a black woman (Jewel Bronaugh) before she resigned to take care of her family. At some point in the future, she's probably going to get nominated to lead that department. When that happens though...is she going to focus on helping black farmers? Hell, will there even be black farmers left by then.

How does power work? You get on, put your people in place, and then focus on helping people in your community. Black people have done this for decades on the local and state level, so it's not that we are inexperienced or have never done xyz before. I understand that federal departments have to help everyone, and "everyone" often means a lot of white people solely due to demographics. However, the black population is so small (relatively) in this country that you can make substantial changes without causing a stir. Less than 2% of US farms are black owned. It wouldn't be hard at all to reach a sizable amount of those owners within a 4 year span (Biden), or an 8 year span (Obama) if there was interest in doing it.

This is one area Obama was trying to tell people about and was right about.

You just gotta do it without talking about it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Fearless Fund barred from awarding grant to Black women founders | TechCrunch

Experts and venture industry insiders following the Fearless Fund case remain dumbfounded as it continues to unfold.

techcrunch.com

Fearless Fund barred from awarding grant to Black women founders
A panel of judges released a preliminary injunction against the fund's Strivers Grant program

Dominic-Madori Davis3:42 PM EDT•October 2, 2023
Arian Simone, left, President and Chief Executive Officer of Fearless Fund, and attorney Ben Crump, speak during a Fearless Fund town hall meeting at The Gathering Spot in Atlanta, Georgia, August 17, 2023.
The Fearless Fund suit is heating up in Atlanta’s 11th Circuit.

A panel of three appellate judges on Saturday temporarily blocked Fearless Fund from awarding its $20,000 Fearless Strivers Grant to Black women entrepreneurs as the lawsuit filed against it makes its way through the courts.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), led by Edward Blum, who was behind the efforts to overturn affirmative action, sued Fearless Fund in August, alleging that its Strivers Grant program discriminates against non-Black women. Judge Robert Luck and Andrew Brasher, both appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed with the AAER, calling the grant “racially exclusionary” and said it likely violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which barred racial discrimination in contracts.

But another judge, Judge Charles Wilson, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, dissented and criticized the AAER for “weaponizing” the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as it was initially targeted to help the formerly enslaved. “AAER fails as an organization bringing a Section 1981 claim on behalf of white members. The inclusion of Asian business owners, while a racial minority, does not cure the inclusion of white business owners,” Wilson wrote in his dissent.

The ruling halts the grant process until a separate panel of judges decides whether the Strivers Grant can be deployed while the suit is played out in district courts. There is no date on when that panel of judges will convene.

Last week, Clinton-appointed Judge Thomas Thrash initially denied the AAER’s request to halt the Strivers Grant and said the fund was protected under the First Amendment because its deployment counted as charitable giving. The AAER then filed an emergency motion to appeal that decision, leading to the three-judge panel that eventually overturned Thrash’s ruling 2-1.

Alphonso David, Fearless Fund’s legal counsel and CEO of the Global Black Economic Forum, released a statement saying the fund and its legal team “respectfully disagree with this Court’s decision, appreciate the important points raised by the dissent, and look forward to further appellate review.” He added, “We remain committed to defending the meaningful work of our clients.”

“The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit,” Blum told TechCrunch.

The website to apply to the Fearless Strivers Grant was taken down as of Saturday.

Meanwhile, experts and industry insiders following the case remain dumbfounded as it continues to unfold. Thomas Dorwart, founder of his law firm Thomas C. Dorwart Law, agreed with Wilson’s dissent. The whole point of Section 1981 was to protect Black Americans from economic disparity and discrimination after the Civil War and Reconstruction, giving them the opportunity to engage in the same contracts as white Americans, he said.

“The whole purpose of the statute is turned on its head by the argument of the plaintiff, and it is a perversion, the Justice says, to apply it this way because it’s actually supposed to do what Fearless Fund is doing, which is to provide economic opportunity for Black Americans,” he said.

And that’s especially useful, given the fact that less than 1% of all venture capital goes to Black women and less than 2% goes to Black founders overall. Dorwart is doubtful that Fearless Fund can now win in the 11th Circuit, given that it is a conservative court. Already, as seen with the preliminary injunction, the issue has split along party lines.

“It’ll eventually go to the Supreme Court, and maybe there’s a bit of a chance there,” he said, pointing out the fact that there are a few moderate Supreme Court justices.

TechCrunch previously reported nervousness throughout the ecosystem. Funds that focus on backing founders of color are wondering what will happen to them as overall exasperation spreads throughout the Black tech community. Chauntelle Lewis, a diversity advisor within the U.K. tech landscape, said Black eyes abroad are even following the case, as the U.S. ecosystem serves as a signal for the European market.

“While nobody will explicitly utter the words, ‘we’re no longer investing in Black initiatives because the majority of the U.S. no longer cares,’ that sentiment seems to be lurking beneath the surface,” she said. “We built our own tables, and now it seems like everyone is cutting off the legs.”

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Judges.

Count.

 

[get these nets]

Fearless Fund CEO on firm's fight to keep grant program for Black women-owned businesses​

CBS Mornings​

Feb 2, 2024
Fearless Fund, a venture capital firm focused on investing in businesses owned by women of color, is fighting a lawsuit claiming that one of its grant programs is discriminatory. The Fearless Fund's legal team argued their case Wednesday before a three-judge panel in a U.S. federal court of appeals in Miami. Fearless Fund co-founder and CEO Arian Simone joins us to discuss the case

 

[Kingofthereal]

nikkas need to stop saying the quiet part out loud

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

they’re about to lose this case

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

nikkas need to stop saying the quiet part out loud

Yep. Blowing the bag out of pride.

also tho…this is why asking for “black only” laws doesn’t work

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]