John Yoo - The Fall of Affirmative Action: Diversity against Individual Rights Ch. 1| HISPBC
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 12. 2023
- The United States Supreme Court ruled that classroom diversity is no longer a compelling interest to justify using race in college admissions, overturning past precedents that had upheld affirmative action for decades. Race alone can no longer act as an adequate substitute for the diversity of perspectives and ideas that students bring. Race-based affirmative action now faces new legal vulnerabilities, including potential lawsuits against other private and public institutions.
Equal justice. Blind justice. Equal opportunity not Equal results.
You really believe the White Man will let that happen. Lol😂
Yoo is a constitutional free thinker! So neede!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:11 🏛️ *The session is conducted like a law school class, emphasizing student participation.*
03:51 🤔 *The Supreme Court ruled that the government does not have a compelling interest in enforcing racial diversity in public institutions.*
06:37 🔄 *Over 50 years, the Court shifted its stance on using race as a proxy for ideological and intellectual diversity in education.*
15:53 🌐 *The change in the Court's perspective is attributed to shifts in the Court's composition and evolving public opinion.*
23:10 🤔 *The future implications extend to potential lawsuits against entities, beyond universities, receiving federal funds.*
25:46 🏛️ *Remedial affirmative action aimed to repair harms inflicted by past discrimination, such as slavery and segregation.*
27:20 🚫 *The majority held that affirmative action violates the equal protection clause, emphasizing individual rights over group rights.*
29:23 🤔 *Affirmative action should be individualized, proving specific harm rather than applying blanket remedies based on race.*
30:29 🌐 *The case focuses on individual rights, in contrast to the popularity of group rights in other countries.*
36:54 📚 *The Supreme Court rejected deferring to university experts, signaling a shift in deciding policies affecting constitutional rights.*
Made with HARPA AI
The court’s decision to focus on individual versus collective/intersectional ideology is absolutely correct.
thank you for posting all these good videos
This is a great video on the AA case. thank you.
Affirmative action cannot be remedial. Societies response is pretty clear. Observe anyone watching a sports game. What happens if a referee decides to apply rules differently to make up for a decision questioned or were wrong few minutes ago. It just does not work. Society cannot work by making mistakes claiming that current mistakes erase past mistakes. A generalized summary of this is the saying that “2 mistakes don’t make a right”. Life is often times as simple as that.
High intellect moral minds.. Mr John.. thx
23:35 - It's a matter of logic: equity, declared as a leading principle excludes equality that is a matter of law.
The victims here are competence and meritocracy. And that is a disaster!
26:31 Because it makes it worse!
I appreciate Yoo's innovation here. Let's kick the audience around. Why stint on stimulation of the high and mighty sub proffesorite thinking body? 😂
Thanks! Is there a part 2 for this presentation?
John Yoo - Do Individual Rights End When They Become Discriminatory? Ch.2 | HISPBC
@@jiahan3849 link please
The history of educational inequality in this country starts in the 18th and 19th century in elementary schools which was the only mandatory schooling required for an agricultural economy in the United States. Mandatory public secondary education only came about in the early 20th century as a result of increased industrialization to the point that most GIs in WWW II barely had a High School diploma. And through all of that, educational resources and government money for building schools and infrastructure was strictly segregated. That is why during the civil rights era the issue of educational inequality was all about primary and secondary education, not college degrees, because the middle class in America was built off factory jobs and government money. Which means this focus on college degrees from Harvard is simply deliberate distraction from the actual problem, which is the continuing inequality in the primary and secondary schools.
Love Yoo John
Using race also robs people of their inward sense that their prowess is a result of their rigor and commitment to excellence
As a private university (academic institution) they have a right to choose who studies/graduates there. That right gets limited if those who study there use "public funds/grants" to study there (and be chosen). By choosing some, and not choosing different ones, that University decides who receives the public funds and who doesn't. They discriminate individuals because of particular traits that they do not have (versus the ones that they do). Getting accepted should be merit-based and not focused on physical or social traits. (Judging a book by it's cover and not for the ideas that are presented inside). Because it is an academic institution, their focus should be concentrated in intellectual capacities and potential. Not their sports potential or political correctness or utopian ideals.
My name is George and I'm a post-graduate of UC Berkeley (right side of the room[?] since I accounted myself). When I see girls with degrees from great universities I get impressed, then I remember quotas. Is that something that will ever be remediated? Is it possible to remediate?
And is it even 'right' to remediate?
One realization I came to well listening to this is the first speaker sounded like he thought race should be considered, probably hispanic as his last name. But I am not aware of where in law Hispanic is considered a race, the law currently allows for people to be white and Hispanic or black and Hispanic. Considering Hispanic was a category invented by the government in 1980 it makes no sense to include it in affirmative action.
Also, affirmative action is based on the scientific understanding of race in the late 1800's; since then the scientific understanding of race has been updated; why should the legal definition of race not be updated. Especially when you consider people were trying to argue they belonged to one race over the other with arbitrary logic. Strangely, the sprem court argued to 'one drop rule' was discriminatory in certain aspects. Yet when it comes to receiving education the 'one drop rule' is considered.
Not enough money for Ukraine and Isreal
Just wanted to reach out on this solemn day of January 6th another day that will live in infamy. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
The fact that this is still a discussion is disgraceful. Equal means equal treatment, regardless of immutable characteristics.
Demographics have changed, there's now greater homogeneity.
Preferential treatment based on gender or ethnicity should never have been the law. The supreme court finally got it right.
Race is an immutable trait and by using it you eventually bolster tribal affinity groups that emerge which leads to segregation
Here we go. Not only affirmative action and women’s rights, this court has agreed to hear if the abortion pill should be illegal:
accessible. The U.S. Supreme Court reentered the abortion debate Wednesday, agreeing to review a lower court decision that would make mifepristone, the commonly used abortion pill, less accessible for women.
The court has had enough of leftist activism
Yoo the evil little torturer.
Mr CIA Torture Program.
it's supposed to be ironic
John Yoo is an intellectual but he is no diplomat and should just give his true opinions on the topic which are quite thorough