Single Status Update
In one article, the author suggest Hollywood is broken up into parts, a white hollywood side unspoken hollywoods, while also suggesting hollywood is aracial, which means the owners are blocking an inherent universality in hollywood. He suggest Mary Alice isn't a household name, but then states she was a household name in black households... what are the points I am getting at? First, this article doesn't honor Mary Alice enough. It focuses on her work in one show, but doesn't refer to her work in los angeles for an august wilson play. I think fences. Honor artist by referring to their work. Second, for someone who loves to learn about race teaching, the opinion author forgets that opportunity in fiscal capitalism has one source, owner. Opportunity in fiscal capitalism is never about merit. It is about the owner. Who the owner wants to help. I repeat, who the owner wants to help. ... the author's point is Mary Alice was denied the career she should had by the mismanagement of fiscal capitalism in the film /television industry in the USA. Meaning what? The owners of film studios side tv stations <and later streaming/cable or other> should give opportunity based on the content of character, not the color of skin. But, If I own a film studio and I have all the films I want to produce in the fiscal year in preproduction except one. Do I give the one slot, the directors chair, to my son who didn't graduate high school, has no experience in the industry or do I give it to a graduate of howard who won awards from spike lee+ oprah winfrey + robert townsend+ in Nollywood? I will give it to my son. why? I am a racist. My bloodline is important to me over those who are not. Sequentially, i Have a negative bias towards my clan. Penultimate from the conclusion, I use the third point, ownership is the key to opportunity in fiscal capitalism. The owner can choose to give opportunity on some scale of merit. But the owner is not obliged to. You own so that you control what you do, and you can never be wrong. You may lose money. You may be cruel or mean spirited. But you are not wrong because you are the owner. Mary Alice was failed by impotency in Black Hollywood not White Hollywoods opportunity to white thespians OR impotency of Black producers in Hollywood to provide support to Black thespians, not White producers in Hollywoods support of White thespians. I can say more but I will agress
Nichelle Nichols side Bill Russell
The NBA is white owned. The NBA didn't accept the HArlem Rens , who played in the now destroyed Renaissance Ballroom. They had a black owner. The Negro Leagues didn't have all black owners, but had many. The American + National leagues , all with white owners could join but couldn't join with Black owners.
Ownership matters. Black people keep suggesting a white man has to look out for non white people in the ownership position. No a white man doesnn't
THOUGHTS AFTER THE ARTICLE
After reading the article below, two points come to mind. First, the court cases that the supreme court is receiving concerning affirmative action are not about Blacks, or Blacks of Africa, it is about Asians, whether White asians or Black Asians, though mostly White asians.
Second, the firms argument is the legitimacy <yes the word legitimacy was used> of modernity or the future requires universities to push a multiracial student body. The firms don't say the best always come from the schools, but the best need to come from those schools to go to them.
What is the firms point? Firms in the USA have restrictive hiring practices. Built over time, advertised as based on merit. The firms hiring practices are based on universities matriculations. But, universities absent affirmative action will make it costlier for those not white and thus the firms, especially tech firms, links into asia will eventually be thin.
What is the argument against affirmative action, in my opinion, not their legal teams words?
The argument against is that affirmative action has been used by asian students to get an unfair advantage when most of those asians are not american citizens, or are not in a community that is financially disadvantaged, ala like Native Americans or Blacks. So USA universities are using affirmative action to gain an international alumni for their favor. Blocking people in the USA who are not more advantaged. To be blunt, in a world with Crazy rich asians, China/Japan/South Korea/India all the top of the list of countries not USA/Western Europe/Russia, the asian community is not disadvantaged.
Apple, GE, other major US companies ask Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action
The companies said race needs to be considered to help build diverse workforces.
August 01, 2022, 9:20 AM
More than 80 major American companies that employ tens of thousands of U.S. workers are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the use of race as a factor in college admissions, calling affirmative action critical to building diverse workforces and, in turn, growing profits.
The businesses -- some of the most high-profile and successful in the U.S. economy -- outlined their position in legal briefs filed Monday ahead of oral arguments this fall in a pair of cases expected to determine the future of the race-based policy.
The companies told the court they rely on universities to cultivate racially diverse student bodies which in turn yield pools of diverse, highly educated job candidates that can meet their business and customer needs.
"The government's interest in promoting student-body diversity on university campuses remains compelling from a business perspective," the companies wrote in an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief. "The interest in promoting student-body diversity at America's universities has, if anything, grown in importance."
Among the signatories are American Express, United and American Airlines, Apple, Intel, Bayer, General Electric, Kraft Heinz, Microsoft, Verizon, Procter & Gamble and Starbucks.
Citing data and research on a rapidly diversifying America, the companies said race-based diversity initiatives are about more than what many call a moral imperative and critical to their bottom lines.
"Prohibiting universities nationwide from considering race among other factors in composing student bodies would undermine businesses' efforts to build diverse workforces," they said.
Eight of the top U.S. science and technology companies, including DuPont and Gilead Sciences, filed a separate brief stressing their view on the importance of racially diverse campuses for cultivating the best future innovators.
"If universities are not educating a diverse student body, then they are not educating many of the best," they wrote, urging the court not to strike down affirmative action. "Today's markets require capitalizing on the racial and other diversity among us … Those efforts, in turn, contribute to the broader health of our nation's economy."
In a series of decisions beginning in 1978, the high court has found that race can be used as one factor among many when considering college admissions applications but that a school cannot use quotas or mathematical formulas to diversify a class.
"In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her 2003 opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger.
A conservative student group challenging the use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University, the nation's oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest public state university, is asking the court to overturn that precedent.
The group, Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Asian-American applicants have been illegally targeted by Harvard and rejected at a disproportionately higher rate in violation of Supreme Court precedent and the students' constitutional rights.
Two lower federal courts have rejected those claims.
That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the cases is widely seen as an indication that the justices could be willing to revisit their precedents on affirmative action and end the use of racial classifications in admissions altogether.
It will be the first test on the issue for the court's six-to-three conservative-leaning majority, following the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom defended race-conscious admissions.