African Peasant
Veteran
The court are against DEI and right wing money is flowing to fight it right now
and your solution is going to courts because it worked a century ago?
you aint ready
What is the so called Black leadership such as the NAACP doing to combat these companies rolling back DEI expect whining and complaining?
- Thread starter Voice of Reason
- Start date
and your solution is going to courts because it worked a century ago?
you aint ready
charknicks
All Star
How much money would it take to lobby a majority of Republicans, and how far do you think the lobbying can go with that money?
What businesses do you want them to establish to employ us black people, that will be a money making business that white people will buy instead of their own products?
Lets not just throw out 'How comes?' We need actual ideas
OperationNumbNutts
Superstar
A thing called not a damn thing.
The whole notion of black leaders has largely become a myth. NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus are only relevant by name now. So called black leaders over time played the same game by not telling people how the game works. Personally, I would consider Dr. Claude Anderson as one of the few black leaders. His message was simple. Without group economics, black people are fycked and he has been saying that for decades.
What about us that voted for them?
2025 Congressional Black Caucus Ceremonial Swearing-In
2025 Congressional Black Caucus Ceremonial Swearing-InJoin this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjXB7nX8bL2U2sje8d212Yw/joinS...
www.youtube.com
OperationNumbNutts
Superstar
^^^^^^^This is what separates us from others. We say elections matters. Cacs on the other hand say lobbyist and lawsuits matters. It was lawsuits, not elections that got DEI overturned.
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
Oh. You think that's new? My mother grew up during segregation. These are the same people and the same courts. shyt was sweet VERY briefly, I see yall confused.
Ok, so why are you arguing against FBA doing the same? One minute, you Mr Individualistic; the next, 'it takes a village.'
You, too, are confused.
T’Challa’s Heir
Superstar
Is there some particular reason you think it’s that easy? Who on this Supreme Court is the equivalent of Earl Warren? Your plan kind of ignores the history of the Supreme Court. The Court that decided Plessy isn’t the court that decided Brown. It took 60 years, 16-17 justices, and at least 7 cases in between. I think it’s unrealistic to say something like “just win” in front of a court that’s still being lead by the dude who said racism was over in the voting rights case.
OperationNumbNutts
Superstar
The answer is simple. Blacks make up 4% of the nation's wealth. There is nothing to be made being pro-black especially when the infrastructure of the black dollar is practically no existent. People should be pay attention to Clarence Thomas' story.
I don't agree with it but folks will understand. Just like pro-athletes making business decisions with their pro-Israel twitter posts last year.
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
Where did I say "easy?" I said "not complicated." If it took 60 yrs to dismantle the entire Jim Crow infrastructure, this shouldn't take too long at all.
Why are you quizzing ME instead of the organization of lawyers many of us PAY to do this? You want Johnnie Cochran levels of legal strategy on the coli? I'm talking to children.
The man controls all the businesses, they run all the unions work programs & the government. The NAACP is kinda useless on controlling what the man does . The courts have been full of cases for over 100 years on bad policing
T’Challa’s Heir
Superstar
Your just “win” comment certainly implies you think it’s easy. And I’m quizzing you because in a previous post, you said that these are the same courts. They’re not the same courts. You’re completely ignoring the makeup of the Supreme Court in the 50s and how it is now. You’re completely ignoring what the trend in the law was going into Brown, towards civil rights and pretending like it’s the same as a court that has gotten increasingly right wing and hostile to minority rights in the last 30 years.
It’s not as simple as just “win” a hostile case. The civil rights lawyers were extra careful in picking and choosing cases because an adverse opinion could set the movement back decades.
Honest question; which of the 6 conservative justices do you see being even remotely receptive to a racial equality argument given the opinions in Students for Fair Admissions?
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
That's an oversimplification of what the NAACP did a hundred years ago. Back then, they were fighting clear, discriminatory laws, like segregation, voter suppression, housing covenants, and so on, that blatantly violated the Constitution. They were able to challenge that, because those cases gave them a solid legal foundation to push through in even the most hostile courts.
What's happening now is different. DEI programs are voluntary. There's no law requiring universities or companies to maintain diversity or DEI efforts, so there's no easy legal hook to challenge it when they walk away from them. The NAACP can't take a company to court just because it dismantled a diversity initiative that they weren't legally obligated to do in the first place.
Having said that, they are bringing legal challenges where they can. The NAACP has filed lawsuits to stop the outright banning of such programs in Texas and Florida. But this is a tougher fight today, given that the courts have become more influenced by political and corporate interests than they were in the past. While the legal system back then was overtly hostile, today it is more subtle. You have to contend with more covert racism, judicial appointments that are increasingly politicized, and big money that plays a much larger role in shaping the legal process. These interests are the same ones behind the legal advocacy groups challenging our rights today. Still, the NAACP, the ACLU et al. are putting up challenges.
The legal landscape in this country *has* changed. The tools that worked in the past don't exactly apply the same way today. The nature of this fight is different, and it requires a mix of legal challenges and public pressure, because the targets now aren't unconstitutional laws, but voluntary programs that institutions and companies are making the conscious choice to abandon.
The "psychos" are exploiting the Civil Rights Act in a system where they're already at the goal line, with a home field advantage and the refs in their pocket.
Last edited:
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
Which is why I said they would have to pick a good case.
The racial equality argument became null and void after the various immigration acts. Our side needs a new argument and we've been trying to give it to them, despite much pushback, and from its potential beneficiaries, might I add.
Lobbying and lawsuits won’t work exactly the same for us. Y’all forget that they were ITCHING to get rid of DEI. It just would’ve looked bad if they did it. Trump and MAGA being elected let these ppl do what they wanted to do. They’d push back, file counter suits, or create policies to go around this shyt if they really wanted to.^^^^^^^This is what separates us from others. We say elections matters. Cacs on the other hand say lobbyist and lawsuits matters. It waslawsuits, not electionsRACISM that got DEI overturned.
Didn’t Costco push back and say no to this shyt? Walmart, etc couldn’t do the same?
Costco Board Stands Up to MAGA's Anti-DEI Bullies
The wholesale giant urges shareholders to reject a right-wing proposal aimed at forcing the company to dump its pro-diversity efforts.
www.metroweekly.com
If they wanted to, they would.