ganksy

Jaysyn , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

Alternative Title: "Meatball Ron is looking for another court to lose in."

I doubt this will ever go to court. Discovery would be too interesting because InBev has better lawyers & they will get access to the FLGOPs emails. May even be able to prove in court that the FLGOP tanked Florida's financial interests.

DeSantis gets spanked in courtrooms so often I'm starting to think that's his kink.

DarkGamer OP , 11 months ago

Florida pension funds under DeSantis also took a bath because they invested in Russia, and because DeSantis gave control of Florida's pension funds to managers who donated to his campaign. Still they're using this as an excuse to push their culture war.

The modern GOP, it's corruption all the way down.

floofloof , 11 months ago

DeSantis lamented the company’s “political agenda,” as embodied by hiring spokesmodel Dylan Mulvaney, as having cost shareholders, especially in Florida, where the state seems to have held stock for months as the state’s politicians and others on the right mocked the brand and helped to erode its market share.

It is impressive how consistently the “party of personal responsibility” finds someone else to blame for the consequences of its own actions.

Hairyblue , 11 months ago

Legacy adminissions is just basicly The Good Old Boy network

admiralteal , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago)

The argument is that legacy admissions are a criterion being used in lieu of race to achieve racial discrimination. Similar systems were an aggressive part of the Jim Crowe South to prevent blacks from voting when they couldn't make skin color-specific rules anymore, where you would have to prove literacy or your grandfather's ability to vote to get a vote in since they knew that no black person could pass those tests.

It's not the strongest case, but it isn't unreasonable and it has a rational basis. I'm skeptical that even a disinterested court would accept the logic on its face and know that the current court will just wallow in its hypocrisy, but I at least understand the principle.

The defense to it is that these elite universities actively desire diversity, so clearly they are not using legacy admits as a proxy for racial discrimination. There's plenty of evidence that there is a different, corrupt-but-legal purpose for these legacy systems that is not racially motivated.

edit: On the flip-side, if indirectly discriminatory policies like these ARE allowed, it gives the universities a clear path forward to continuations of their AA policies. They just need to replace the race of their applicants with proxies for race that are allowed. Theoretically, this logic could force a standoff -- either policies that indirectly have discriminatory outcomes (defined by who?) are illegal or they aren't. Or else you'd have to somehow prove intention to discriminate before you could find a policy illegal, which is another very complex can of worms that the elite universities could probably get around.

And so, like with everything around this case, it likely won't change any real behavior from the elite universities but will seriously fuck with less affluent ones.