Legal activist who blew up affirmative action has a new target: report
By: David McAfee
Original article from The New York Times
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The legal strategist who created the group that toppled affirmative action at academic institutions is reportedly looking to his next target at the Supreme Court.
Edward Blum, who first challenged affirmative action before the country's top court in 2012, founded Students for Fair Admissions, which prevailed against Harvard and the University of Carolina, according to the New York Times. Blum now has his sights set on corporate America, according to an interview with the Times.
"Now, with a legal victory in hand, Mr. Blum is thinking about what’s next in his work to remove the consideration of race from other parts of American life and law," according to the article published on Saturday. "In a wide-ranging discussion, he told me about how he’ll be watching to make sure elite institutions of higher learning abide by the court’s recent decision, and why he thinks corporate America will be facing scrutiny next."
When asked about what else he might have his eye on, Blum talked about what is and isn't actionable when it comes to race in the workplace.
"What is actionable is a corporation that says, 'We are putting a ‘help wanted’ sign on the office door, and here’s the kind of employee that we’re looking to hire. We’re looking to hire those of this race, but not that race.' So all of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships — all of that I think will be energized by this Supreme Court opinion," Blum answered in the Times interview. "And we’re blessed to have this Supreme Court opinion
When asked if Blum was taking the fight to corporate America next, he said "employment is one area that I think will garner greater attention, not just from me, but from other organizations, other legal policy foundations."
"I also think that some of the things that we associate with higher education — internships, scholarships, certain research grants — those need to be revisited if they have been race-exclusive," he added.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Tags
Who is online
280 visitors
These people manufacture lawsuits to push an agenda.
I guess it works...
Like the ACLU, Environmentalists, Community Groups, etc.
One warning, talk about the actual article.
There is a significant differences between what organizations choose as pursuits. And not all agendas are good or equal. There have ALWAYS been bigots who frame their hatred of certain groups as claims of liberty—misguided souls that they are. Case in point: Justice Clarence Thomas went to Yale University because of Affirmative Action and when selected by President H. W. Bush to be an associate justice at the Supreme Court, that president stated, 'Clarence did not win this nomination based on his color/race, he gained it because (get this) he is the best candidate at this time for it.'
Can you belief those words?
An affirmative action "student" named Clarence Thomas was declared the best in his field by a sitting president to get an appointment to a life-time position.
So for those who try to 'discount' those in any A A program as being inferior quality, they are first and foremost full of shit! And now to Thomas. For him to always resent/discount his own higher education placement and which landed him a "supreme" life-long job proves he is the saddest kind of a fool!
Edward Blum is attacking a program that in practice works, just to appease conservative bias against minorities. Minorities everybody know then and now continue to receive whichever end is the shortest on the stick!
They bring lawsuits based on perceived legal grounds, they don't manufacture them. They are far from the first ones to do that.
Some groups only purpose is to change law and how to go about it.
Commenting on your comment is inappropriate?
Not if you don't agree or point out hypocrisy.
Apparently my question was deemed off topic unlike the assertion in1.
So what is the problem with this?
"What is actionable is a corporation that says, 'We are putting a ‘help wanted’ sign on the office door, and here’s the kind of employee that we’re looking to hire. We’re looking to hire those of this race, but not that race".
WHAT? They want companies to not discriminate because of race? How un Democrat.
I don't understand what it is exactly he plans to target as there are already laws in place, unless that is what he is looking for, to overturn existing law.
Unless he is saying existing law is not being upheld fairly or they allow discrimination.
Mr. Blum is SIGNALING his future intention is to go after employers with a lawsuit (so-called, "social justice" corporations like Kaiser Permanente and Pepsi Corps that loudly and publicly support inclusion, diversity, and equity/equality - AKA: Affirmative Action). As you can see, the dread of the supreme court is upon us! The conservative court has signaled its intention to rethink, conservatively, opinions won by their liberal/moderate justice counterparts. To that end, conservative judges and SCOTUS are 'clasping' hands with there conservative members in the legal community to do just that.
He's not targeting existing law, to have it overturned. Quite the contrary. He is talking of enforcing existing law.
And what is he going to do, police every business?
Whatever floats his boat. Is it upsetting to think that a person aggrieved, by unlawful employment practices, might have someone willing to promote their cause?
Isn't that a principal reason for a lawsuit other than collecting damages?
So he plans on overturning existing discrimination laws?
I would guess so although he doesn't consult with me.