“ And to a certain extent, it's... working? Several years ago, you would not have seen any mainstream publication talking about, as you point out, unpopular ideas like privilege, prison abolition, critical race theory, etc. and now it's everywhere”
But RBAA has been a live issue of debate since the 90s, and it doesn’t seem to be getting a…
“ And to a certain extent, it's... working? Several years ago, you would not have seen any mainstream publication talking about, as you point out, unpopular ideas like privilege, prison abolition, critical race theory, etc. and now it's everywhere”
But RBAA has been a live issue of debate since the 90s, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any more popular. It hasn’t totally lost at the Supreme Court level, but it’s been somewhat backed into a corner, and it’s a consistent loser at the ballot box.
Fair point about the loss of support, but now I'm curious: did RBAA lose support in the 90s compared to the 60s-70s? And if so, what happened? I don't have any data on what the general populace believed, but at least legally the argument was that RBAA was acceptable for a limited time to 'make up' for the effects of racism.
In any case, the overall point was more that the "liberal intellectual spaces" have succeeded in introducing many of their ideas and language to a broader and younger audience, and members of that audience are motivated to 'evangelize' and enact change. It's possible they will succeed in changing the conversation in the future, even if right now they are losing the GP.
Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger in 2003 are generally regarded as the the inflection point that determined that AA to “make up for” historical racism was unconstitutional, but AA to achieve the same bad of “diversity” was allowable so long as it was evaluated on an individual basis.
And 96 is when the California amendment passed.
I’d say the decade from 95 to 05 was pretty critical for AA starting to lose ground (or maybe not “become less popular” so much as “become more widely known and therefore people started agitating against it”).
“ And to a certain extent, it's... working? Several years ago, you would not have seen any mainstream publication talking about, as you point out, unpopular ideas like privilege, prison abolition, critical race theory, etc. and now it's everywhere”
But RBAA has been a live issue of debate since the 90s, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any more popular. It hasn’t totally lost at the Supreme Court level, but it’s been somewhat backed into a corner, and it’s a consistent loser at the ballot box.
Fair point about the loss of support, but now I'm curious: did RBAA lose support in the 90s compared to the 60s-70s? And if so, what happened? I don't have any data on what the general populace believed, but at least legally the argument was that RBAA was acceptable for a limited time to 'make up' for the effects of racism.
In any case, the overall point was more that the "liberal intellectual spaces" have succeeded in introducing many of their ideas and language to a broader and younger audience, and members of that audience are motivated to 'evangelize' and enact change. It's possible they will succeed in changing the conversation in the future, even if right now they are losing the GP.
Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger in 2003 are generally regarded as the the inflection point that determined that AA to “make up for” historical racism was unconstitutional, but AA to achieve the same bad of “diversity” was allowable so long as it was evaluated on an individual basis.
And 96 is when the California amendment passed.
I’d say the decade from 95 to 05 was pretty critical for AA starting to lose ground (or maybe not “become less popular” so much as “become more widely known and therefore people started agitating against it”).
I would like to point out that this "younger audience" has to be one-a *the* most delusional generations that's ever been conceived. So it figures.
I went to college- at University of Michigan in the 80's, and RBAA was not widely popular at the time.