top of page

573: The Supreme Court Rules on Affirmative Action, Discrimination, & Free Speech


The Supreme Court has released two highly anticipated and controversial rulings about race, sexual identity, and discrimination. First, colleges and universities may no longer give preferential status to applicants based on their race. Is the end of affirmative action really the catastrophe some are claiming? And a web designer will not be required by law to create websites for same-sex weddings. Is this ruling a defeat for LGBT rights, or a victory for free speech? And why has the reporting about both of these cases been so misleading? Also this week, a new government super-computer will determine whether we should geo-engineer the atmosphere to block out the sun. What could possibly go wrong? And Phil blows things up in rural Michigan.




Patreon Bonus:

Getting Schooled by Kaitlyn Schiess - Rapture Fiction 101



0:00 - Intro


1:32 - Show Starts


3:11 - Theme Song


3:33 - Sponsor - Faithful Counseling


4:42 - Sponsor - Hiya Health


5:50 - 4th of July Recap

10:25 - Supercomputer to determine whether to block the Sun


19:08 - Correction from last week


22:00 - Affirmative Action


42:56 - Sponsor - AG1


44:26 - Sponsor - Sundays Dog Food


45:40 - 303 Creative Supreme Court Decision


1:15:06 - End Credits




Links mentioned in news segment:


Supercomputer Will Help Decide whether to Block the Sun



Honestly with Bari Weiss Podcast



Other resources:


Holy Post website: https://www.holypost.com/


Holy Post Plus: www.holypost.com/plus



Holy Post Merch Store: https://www.holypost.com/shop



The Holy Post is supported by our listeners. We may earn affiliate commissions through links listed here. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.






56 comentários


Regarding 303 Creative: There are a lot of legal and constitutional issues regarding freedom of speech, versus compelled speech, versus religious freedom that are outside my competence. (Where was David French in this episode?) But I do have concerns about the case making it to SCOTUS in the first place, considering no one was claiming harm. My layman understanding is no one had standing to bring the case. (See: Opinion | The 2023 SCOTUS Awards - The New York Times (nytimes.com)) This is backed by the high degree of hypothetical circumstances of possibly doing a wedding site and possibly having a potential same-sex client. As of this post, the 303 Creative website has no mention of wedding website design ser…


Curtir

Rational converse

Is not well forwarded by

blanket denials ... 俳句


I don't do click bait. I do long forms and books and lots of thinking and watching. My sources are divers but do not include anti-democracy sources. If that makes me unbalanced, let me go on listing. Call this disengagement, or at least demurring. But "in the pockets of billionaires" is hardly a matter of clickbait. And Blasey Ford's allegations may not have been "convictable" but I found them credible. Not a woman, not a sexual assault survivor, but I was bullied for several years in my school years, and she was telling something largely true -- and Anita Hill? I found her credible too.


So, you can't write…

Curtir

Tyler
Tyler
16 de jul. de 2023

A question walked around in the podcast during the 303Creative conversation and not answered was whether refusing to "create" a website for an interracial couple would be considered an illegal denial of rights by the business or state-coerced speech upon the business. Like if 303Creative or the cake baker said, "You can buy any of my existing products that all feature white couples, but I refuse to create something displaying an interracial couple." Where along the line should that fall? Protected speech or a violation of the couples' rights to service?


Though not 100% parallel, multi-racial marriage and same-gender marriage lay on very similar legal ground. Becaus of the reconstruction amendments, the race-based example might fall under more strict scrutiny…


Curtir
Respondendo a

I had very similar thoughts Tyler. If I substitute "bi-racial" or even "couple of color" in these examples I have a difficult time seeing the legal distinctions.

Curtir

Mark Norman
Mark Norman
15 de jul. de 2023

Phil correctly pointed out the dramatic shift in enrollment demographics in the years following CAs decision to end affirmative action, in the 90s. Skye said they had figured out how to make up for it since then, but that’s not even close to true. Prior to the ban CA university enrollment demographics matched the overall state. It has never even come close since the ban. More importantly though, the research shows how much more of a difference in income a degree from an elite CA university made for blacks and hispanics vs whites and asians. Having that elite degree increased income for blacks and hispanics by >5% on average, but it made no difference for the whites and asians that too…

Curtir
Mark Norman
Mark Norman
19 de jul. de 2023
Respondendo a

Unfortunately, a simple demographics based quota (affirmative action), the only system demonstrated to have the desired outcome, runs afoul of the text of the 14th amendment, even though it clearly meets its intent.

The data I referred to mostly came from an NPR story: https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185226895/heres-what-happened-when-affirmative-action-ended-at-california-public-colleges


The story references a paper by economist, Zach Bleemer: https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california’s-proposition-209


The post above also links to the amicus brief provided to the court by U Cal Chancellors, which basically says ‘CA has spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to replicate the outcomes that affirmative action achieved and we are still falling short.’


Curtir

Thomas Smith
Thomas Smith
15 de jul. de 2023

I did not go “wild” considering the ruling on Affirmative Action until I heard Mike Pence say something to the effect of “those days being over”. That statement isn’t about legacy admissions, so it whistles to a faction of America to reject any manner of restitution in contemporary society. The case against race based admissions was levied against UNC for violation of the 14th amendment which in the context of 1868, is all about restitution (for Blacks)! The affect on college admissions perhaps is minimal, but the overall impact of the ruling is significant, because systematic racism still uniquely impacts the Black community as a whole and eliminating small measures of restitution (seemingly against the context of the 14th) impacts…

Curtir
bottom of page