Harris, a lawyer and former state attorney general, knows that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has little patience for racial preferences. In 2023, the court found it unconstitutional to consider race in college admissions, overturning precedents that since 1978 had found the goal of student diversity sufficient to justify affirmative action policies. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Roberts wrote for the court, including well-intentioned programs administered in good faith.
The activist behind the admissions litigation, Edward Blum, has since been warning government agencies, nonprofit foundations and private companies to end race-conscious programs or face a lawsuit. Several have complied. In September, for instance, Atlanta-based Fearless Fund, which promotes minority female entrepreneurs, settled a Blum-filed lawsuit by agreeing to end a grant program that awarded $20,000 to small businesses led by women of color.
Blum promised to sue a Harris administration if it enacted what she seemed to be promising. “Racially exclusive programs like the one she has proposed have been repeatedly struck down by the courts in the past,” he said.
Even though the Agenda for Black Men programs will be open to everyone, the Harris campaign insisted it wasn’t misleading the target audience. The vice president assembled the ideas after hearing “powerful stories from Black men about the biggest hurdles that still make it too difficult for them to get their businesses off the ground,” a campaign handout says. Some proposals are sure to benefit the target group, such as increasing federal efforts to combat sickle cell disease. According to the National Institutes of Health, 90% of those afflicted are Black.
It's like people completely forgot what JUST happened with affirmative action.So, like with the Black Farmer case, they are playing smart to avoid being sued but cant directly say things are JUST for black peole
not with republicans suing and being able to count on Trump's supreme court
You mean affirmative action that benefited white women more than anyone?It's like people completely forgot what JUST happened with affirmative action.
Sure. That was the reality of it.You mean affirmative action that benefited white women more than anyone?
So why say in the first place then? You run the risk of having some of those voters not knowing the actual reasoning behind the pivot and think that you’re doing a rug pull by changing the messaging.So, like with the Black Farmer case, they are playing smart to avoid being sued but cant directly say things are JUST for black peole
not with republicans suing and being able to count on Trump's supreme court
SHE ALREADY SAID SHE WOULD NEVER
DO ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY FOR BLACK PPL
SO DONT ACT SURPRISED WHEN
THIS PLAN IS ACTUALLY FOR EVERY GENDER
AND EVERY RACE
AS THEY PUT A PHOTO OP OF BLACK MEN
ON THE COVER
/threadSo, like with the Black Farmer case, they are playing smart to avoid being sued but cant directly say things are JUST for black peole
not with republicans suing and being able to count on Trump's supreme court
Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
No, thats not how this works. If she says nothing, she doesn’t care about black people, the men in particular. Anyone who is politically aware enough to ask for a platform should be aware enough to contextualize the climate we are in. A candidate for office can only do so much dumbing down. Most regular people dont start paying attention to politics until after labor day so that means they ignored a whole lot to get to this point.So why say in the first place then? You run the risk of having some of those voters not knowing the actual reasoning behind the pivot and think that you’re doing a rug pull by changing the messaging.
Sounds like her team didn’t think it all the way through before putting it out there.