Affirmative inaction

by liberal japonicus

A continuation of discussion in the previous post. Nous suggested that

And between this and Roe, I think the GOP is going to be in serious trouble with educated suburban women.

While I believe nous is talking about larger problems of college affordability and college debt, in case anyone thinks that the cancellation of affirmative action will cause problems for educated suburban women, this article suggests that it might not be true:

If white women benefit from affirmative action, why do they oppose it?

Half of Americans do not approve of colleges and universities considering race in admissions, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. A majority of white adults disapprove of it, too. About 70% of non-Hispanic white women somewhat or strongly oppose affirmative action, according to a 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

White women have also challenged affirmative action policies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against Abigail Fisher, a white student who said the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race. 

There is an interesting discussion related to feminism and intersectionality here, which I hope we might take up in the comments.

Half of this particular go-around revolved around Asian representation at Harvard, and this Vox article is good on explaining why it is a load of crap. The whole 'OMG Asians can't get into Harvard' is pretty amazing to me, given that a few decades ago, there were complaints about Asians 'killing the curve'.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, large numbers of Asian Americans began enrolling at elite universities,180 just as these universities started to emphasize diversity in the wake of the Bakke decision. Asian Americans were seen as foreigners on campuses, and there was a backlash to their growing presence. Professor Dana Takagi discusses how resentful White students labeled various campuses having significant Asian American student populations with xenophobic epithets. 181 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) was dubbed “Made in Taiwan” and the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”), was called “University of Caucasians Living Among Asians.” Elevators in buildings with large numbers of Asian American students were called “[t]he Orient Express.” 183 The peril of the mind trope was also readily apparent: White students viewed Asian Americans as “‘hordes’ of ‘unfair competition’” and advised each other not to take classes that had large numbers of Asian American students.

The link that is from is quite good and has this revealing aspect of the SFFA's case.

SFFA’s legal documents revealed other embarrassing information for Harvard. One particularly troubling example illustrated how Harvard’s Administration appeared to underplay one of its alum’s overtly racist remarks against Asian Americans:

"[I]n 2012, [President Drew] Faust received a letter from an alumnus making racist statements about Asian-American applicants. Specifically, the alumnus urged Harvard to adopt “informal quotas.” Such quotas “would include foreign students and the country of their origin. For example, I would limit the number of Japanese students to a certain percentage or number. . . . None of this, of course, has to go beyond the confines of the dean’s office. The last time I was in Cambridge it seemed to me that there were a large number of oriental students, for example. I think they probably should be limited to 5%. . . . I would appreciate hearing what you might think of my comments."

SFFA reported that, rather than rebuking these remarks, Harvard Admissions Director Marlyn McGrath responded to the alum as follows (copying President Faust):

"President Faust has asked me to respond to your April 4 letter, in which you offer many thoughtful observations about Harvard College students and the results of the admissions process. . . . All of us at Harvard appreciate your thoughtful letter, as well as your loyalty over the years." SFFA highlighted that Harvard’s response did not take issue with the alumnus’s comments about limiting the number of “oriental students” at Harvard or establishing informal quotas. While President Faust acknowledged that the alum’s letter was “preposterous,”she did not think it was necessary to rebuke him because he was “a 90-year-old alum who’s given some kind of support to scholarships. He graduated with the class of 1942. He probably went off and fought in World War II.”

Harvard did not dispute that these incidents occurred as stated in SFFA’s motion. It merely (though correctly) stated that the incident had no bearing on the legality of its race-conscious admissions policy. 375 But SFFA’s argument exploited the incident and Harvard’s response in order to pit people of color against each other. SFFA specifically contended that incidents of explicit bias against Asian Americans are not taken as seriously as those against other racial minority groups:

At her deposition, Faust refused to answer whether a letter saying the same thing about African Americans would have deserved a similar “polite and respectful” response. Nor would she speculate how Asian-American students might react to the letter, because they “have not seen these letters . . . . [T]hese are matters of personal correspondence that are not matters of public scrutiny.”

Harvard wasn't woke enough to slap down a (possible) WWII vet and this is evidence that Harvard in discriminating. The irony, it burns...

The Grauniad has this article with some observations about the case

But in order to win at court, SFFA deployed some stage trickery – disappearing Asian Americans at just the right moment. From the district court to the supreme court, SFFA produced exactly zero students and Asian Americans to testify. Even after forcing Harvard to turn over nearly 100,000 pages of documents, they could not produce a single individual case of discrimination.

Harvard introduced four students, two of whom were Asian American. Sally Chen, a low-income, first-generation Chinese immigrant student accepted in 2015, testified that she was accepted amid a vast pool of valedictorians with perfect SATs and 4.5 GPAs only because of the school’s holistic admissions process. She was able to tell her story, be seen, and valued. Judge Sotomayor noted this in her dissent, writing: “At bottom, race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community.”

SFFA stacked its legal team with former clerks of Judge Clarence Thomas. Then it gave its case gravitas with a blinkered history of anti-Asian discrimination that ignored everything after the 1940s. Thomas later included this version of events in his concurring opinion.

He added: “Given the history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially their history with segregated schools, it seems particularly incongruous to suggest that a past history of segregationist policies toward blacks should be remedied at the expense of Asian American college applicants.”

This article points to the splits in the "Asian-American" community, which I put in quotes, because the concept has a lot of problems.

This Voxexplainer is very interesting and points out the following:

The history of affirmative action starts not in the university system, but in labor policy. According to historian Hugh Davis Graham, the term first appeared in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, a key piece of New Deal legislation that gave employees the right to form unions and required employers to bargain collectively with them. In that context, affirmative action was used as a term to compel employers who had engaged in unfair labor practices to compensate victims.

My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students. While I don't believe that the Democrats are analyzing it the same way I am, this Politico piece discusses that and also points out that some Democrats want to take aim at legacy admissions.

Democrats are now looking for other legislative options to boost minority admissions at colleges, like ending legacy admissions that benefit children of alumni. Even that bill, introduced by progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), has a slim chance at passage, but it’s a message that resonates with other Democrats who see the proposal as another way to help level the playing field.

This would be very interesting because, much more than defending admission diversity, this would really impact the business model of elite higher education. Anyway, have at it.

 

 

Comments

[Hartmut]

Remember the infamous "Hands" election ad of Jesse Helms? And that was not even for higher education.
The underlying assumption (that of course the white person is the most qualified by default) will still be quite effective to-day, I fear.
And the two-pronged attack too (Minority A is inferior and should not get any advantage because that would be unfair to US, minority B is superior, so WE need protection to counter THEIR unfair advantage.).
The main thing is not for it to work everywhere but there where the GOP needs a few extra votes. Those disgusted would not vote GOP anyway.

But cynic that I am, I'd say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage. No doubt they'd find some black legacy student that the Dems (the party of the KKK, you know) now want to discriminate against. They will not present e.g. the lesser Bush or his Orangeness.

[bobbyp]

legacies....rich people will always have their own kind of affirmative action because they can buy it.

Implimenting broad public policy changes that would result in a lot fewer rich people and fewer poor people would go a long way toward resolving this problem.

[wj]

My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students.

I would agree that affirmative action draws attention away from the real problem. But while lack of support for students (resulting in limited success) is a problem, I don't think that is the real problem either. No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level. Given equal quality education there, the closest you need to affirmative action is adequate scholarship funding. Because the students who have gotten in on affirmative action are every bit as bright as anybody else; they just haven't had the same teaching. (I believe that JanieM made that point in the previous thread.)

[wj]

I'd say that a close loss at SCOTUS with flaming dissents from the likes of Thomas would be more advantageous to the GOP who now only can demagogue any Dem efforts to mitigate the damage.

In capturing the Supreme Court, as in (narrowly) capturing the House, the reactionaries have the same problem: it's far easier to agree on what/who you don't like than to agree on the alternative.

It might be easier if they were conservatives, rather than reactionaries. A conservative Court could just slow down the pace of change. Which would irritate the most enthusiastic progressives, but nothing more. However, but attempting to turn back the clock, they infuriate pretty much everybody from progressives thru real conservatives.

Life was soooo much easier for politicians who cater to the reactionaries when they could rant and rave without any fear that they might be in a position to deliver. Now, they've got two options:
- do the sane thing, i.e. fail to deliver, and get primaried, or
- deliver, repel the youngest voters (who grew up with today's world an consider it normal), and lose power for a couple of generations.

[Pro Bono]

Two extracts from the BBC's coverage:

Trump:"Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!"

That would be unless a rich parent or brother can give you a leg up.

Angie Gabeau, president of the Harvard Black Students' Association: Harvard already lacks real diversity in many ways and the problem will quickly get worse following today's decision.

"Most of the black and brown students on campus already come from elite private schools," she says, and few represent under-privileged parts of the country or come from under-resourced schools.

[bobbyp]

No, the real problem is back at the elementary school and high school level.

And how so? It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools....turtles all the way down.

[JanieM]

The 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision in San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973) ruled no constitutional right to an equal education, held no violation of rights in Texas' school system, and reserved jurisdiction and management of Texas' public school finance system to the state.

From here.

All day I have kept wanting to make a comment about the wedding website decision here, and kept telling myself that that's not the topic at hand.

But really, it's kind of all the same topic (even if you don't define the topic as "the corrupt bunch of asshole religious fanatics who dominate SCOTUS these days).

There was a book published in 2004 by Evan Gerstmann called Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Gerstmann said that when he set out to study the topic, he didn't think there was any right to same-sex marriage to be found in that document, and when he got a certain distance down the road he changed his mind.

I am writing this from memory; I read the book a long time ago. But bobbyp's 5:52 brought it to mind, because one of the cases Gerstmann writes about is San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez. As a parent who homeschooled my kids, I was appalled at the juxtaposition of two facts: 1) there is, acc' to SCOTUS, no constitutional requirement that schools provide children with a good education, or even a marginally decent one. 2) kids have to go anyhow.

As a footnote, homeschooling and homosexuality tended to bring out very similar reactions in a lot of people, only not the same people. Right-wingers' minds shut down at the thought of gay people, liberals' at the thought of homeschooling. I got so I didn't talk about any of it unless I was very sure of my context. But -- a topic for another day.

[wj]

It all starts with housing and job discrimination leading to dramatic disparaties in wealth and poorly funded schools....turtles all the way down.

I think you've got causality the wrong way around. 50 years ago, you might have had a case. But today? Not so much.

Yes, there is still job discrimination. But there is an acute enough shortage of well educated and capable people that job discrimination is less. That's why we have hordes of well educated, but not white (by the criteria of our bigots anyway) and immigrant besides, folks from India coming here and holding down high paying jobs. We've got lots of people who are bright enough to do those same jobs, if only they got onto the educational path early.

So, deal with the elementary and secondary schools, and you're well on your way to a solution. Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination. Not trivial, given the reactionaries' attacks on education. But still, far easier than the other.

[JanieM]

wj ... did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ......... "deal with the elementary and secondary school" -- snap of the finger and we're set, right?

[JanieM]

Note also that it is both cheaper and politically easier to sell better education than it is to sell redress of, for example, job discrimination.

Since we're talking fantasy here, I'll contradict you without trying to find any evidence other a lifetime of living in the USA.

It is not politically easy to sell better education, especially if you hint that it might tend even the tiniest bit in the direction of equal education. I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.

What fantasy world do you live in? Oh wait, I know, California. ;-)

But even there......

[bobbyp]

I think you've got causality the wrong way around.

Absolutely disagree with extreme four letter word tossing vehemence. If white folks were beating down doors and flooding the streets in protest to move into black neighborhoods and to send their children to majority minority schools, you might have a case.

But we do not observe this.

Have a nice Fourth, and remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.

[Girl from the North Country]

And a good Fourth to all of you from here too. Indulge in self-flagellation for ancestral wrongdoing if you must, but I can't see that it's at all necessary for anybody here.

[bobbyp]

wj,
awareness is not self-flagellation. I say this as a "real leftist"....LOL!

Have a good day.

[CharlesWT]

I would love to see the day when people who live in rich school districts are waiting in line to cough up more taxes to improve education in poorer districts.

That happened in Texas though no one was waiting in line to cough up more taxes. The state told wealthy school districts they had to share their tax revenues with poorer school districts. It's called Robinhood. A number of the "poorer" districts spent the money on professional-level sports stadiums.

[JanieM]

From an old "thought of the day" calendar: "An idea is not responsible for the people who espouse it."

Variation for CharlesWT: "An idea is not invalidated by incompetent implementation." Or Texas high school sports insanity.

[nous]

Hey, I live in California too, and suffer no such fantasy.

Things that might put a dent in education inequality...

Universal pre-k with a better focus on building towards literacy and numeracy and with free lunch for all children.

Adequate funding for infrastructure and materials in all public school districts.

An end to the standardized testing regime and its curricular contraction.

...but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children's success will be attenuated.

Rich districts, by and large, outperform the scores of the top scoring countries in educational outcomes. Well off districts are up to the educational standards of the top scoring countries.

It's not our pedagogical system that is broken, it's our social support systems that fail our learners.

And that's before calculating in the effects of generational trauma and of mass incarceration on minority populations.

---

As for my thoughts about homeschooling, they are quite mixed. I have friends who have done a wonderful job of it, and relatives who are busy producing a second generation of conspiracy minded extremists and bigots. And I'm very aware of how much sexual predation and abuse gets hidden in evangelical communities through homeschooling. So while I am sympathetic to the urge to homeschool, I'd prefer a more robust system of oversight and standards for it in practice.

[wj]

did you notice the bit about housing discrimination? ......... "deal with the elementary and secondary school" -- snap of the finger and we're set, right?

Actually, I did notice. But I'm thinking that there's no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. An educated population is a benefit to a state, and lack of one a liability (c.f. Alabama and Mississippi, just for two, vs California and Massachusetts). It's also a national benefit. So why not fund it from there?

We already have some gestures that way , for example Pell Grants. Or, if you want to go historical**, land grant universities. So go all in. Have all public education funded that way.

Not quite a snap of the fingers. But would correcting housing discrimination be quicker and easier? Cheaper? Definitely not in California; I realize Maine might be a different story.

** Because us conservatives just love history, ya know. ;-)

[wj]

remember to give thanks to your forbearers who stole this land by force from others so you (and me) could enjoy the benificence of affirmative action for white people.

That would be ancestors like my grandfather, who immigrated here in the early 1900s? A bit too late to get in on stealing land by force from anybody.

Check your assumptions at the door.

[wj]

but I agree with JanieM and BobbyP that you cannot transform children simply by transforming the schools they attend. If their parents are impacted by food insecurity, or illiteracy, or a lack of access to health care (including mental health care), then the children's success will be attenuated.

No argument here regarding the impact of parents, especially their attitudes towards education. Better schools aren't a complete solution. But I would argue that they are a way to substantially address the problem.

And I've yet to see evidence, or even persuasive arguments, that successfully redressing housing discrimination would be either easier or cheaper to accomplish. Perhaps bobbyp, as our "real leftist"™, can provide some.

[nous]

Google "housing insecurity and educational outcomes" for a start. There are lots of studies from the Department of Education and from HUD, not to mention lots from the state level.

I'm sure that you will find lots of devils to advocate for there as well, but it should hopefully get us to where we are talking about actual studies and outcomes.

For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.

Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids, and oppose anything that focuses resources somewhere that might raise outcomes elsewhere and thus make their own child less competitive.

[wj]

For my part, I remain absolutely gobsmacked at the number of GOP types who attack universal school lunch, just to name one thing that, If we had it, would absolutely lead to better educational outcomes.

I can't agree . . . to the "gobsmacked" part. Disgusted, but not gobsmacked. After all, their kids don't need free lunches. And empathy, let alone other virtues, are seriously endangered species there.

[nous]

Okay, I'm gobsmacked by the self-professed Christians that do so...

[wj]

Fair enough. Although ever since the "prosperity gospel" nonsense appeared on the scene, I've gotten seriously skeptical about self-professed "Christians" -- too many show zero acquaintance with, never mind actual knowledge of, Jesus words.

[JanieM]

Random quick reactions:

1. nous on homeschooling as a cover for abuse: agree about better oversight being needed, but it's not like there isn't abuse in schools as well.

2. wj: But I'm thinking that there's no reason, philosophically, why education should be funded primarily (or at all) by local property taxes. Historical reasons, yes, but no reason not to change that. --- Philosophically, sure. But honestly, I think you'll pry their guns out of the hands of a lot of Americans before you'll pry local control of education. And I bet there are even more -- and far more -- people who would fight you about education than about guns.

3. I also have ancestors who didn't come to these shores until early in the 20th century. On the other hand, i have other ancestors who were here in the 1630s....

[JanieM]

Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren't getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn't get in sued one of them...?

[wj]

Does the AA decision have any implications for HBCUs? I suppose HBCUs aren't getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white snowflake who didn't get in sued one of them...?

On current evidence, the Court would rule that the snowflake somehow didn't have standing. Hey, it makes as much sense as some of their recent rulings.

[liberal japonicus]

Well, regarding HBCU, this story might be of interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHM7cHoWzyw

[JanieM]

lj, that's a great story. Thank you.

[bobbyp]

Perhaps bobbyp, as our "real leftist"™, can provide some.

lol...that was tongue-in-cheek mirroring your apparently serious use of the term "real conservatives" (see abv.).

As for policy, well, this is not hard. Here's an example:

https://www.habitat.org/stories/5-policy-solutions-advance-racial-equity-housing

Happy 4th.

[wj]

Thanks for the link. I'd be interested in examples of where those (entirely reasonable IMHO) policies have been implemented successfully. And what results were seen, particularly (if there has been enough time) in educational outcomes.

I mean, we've got plenty of stories where a good school, or sometimes just a couple of good teachers, turned around the lives of kids in one of those poor, historically segregated, neighborhoods. So we know that can work, and fairly rapidly. If we're willing to put the resources in to do it.

[wj]

A little something more on schools and education.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/03/democrats-schools-fix/

Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training. And notes how far we lag behind other developed countries on that front.

[nous]

Among other things, the author highlights the need for better teacher training.

I don't disagree, but I really hate that particular framing of things.

We have a serious shortage of teachers. The teachers that we have are under huge amounts of stress and are burning out. Both of these things were crises even before the pandemic.

Better training would be welcome, but it isn't going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won't reduce the threat of school violence. It won't stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.

It won't give them any power to implement that better training in their own classroom. Culture Warrior parents and politicians are going to override their professional judgment at every turn.

I try very hard not to shit on the dreams of my students who are education majors, but I think that most of them are going to be unhappy and frustrated and actively prevented from doing the things that they have been trained to do, and that there is no sign that any of this will improve in the near future.

When I went back to college to finish my undergraduate studies at the age of 34, I was thinking I would become a high school teacher. My professors encouraged me to consider grad school and academia. I ended up an adjunct professor, disempowered and devalued by my institution's administrators. Yet I am still quite grateful that my professors nudged me away from secondary education and towards higher education. I'll take my precarity over the load of crap that my K-12 colleagues have to suffer through.

[wj]

Better training would be welcome, but it isn't going to make up for low wages and even lower morale. It won't reduce the threat of school violence. It won't stop idiots with guns from showing up at school board meetings and screaming about teachers being pedophiles and groomers.

Absolutely agree that teachers' wages need to be far higher. I'm less sure that getting better teachers wouldn't have a positive impact of school violence.

And, of course, idiots with guns and no grip on reality require a whole different set of changes.

[nous]

Every beginning teacher wants to be one of those teachers that turns children's lives around and improves the community.

The reality of how education actually functions in the US actively works against them being allowed to become that person.

Raising wages would be a welcome step, but it would not alter the structures that disempower teachers and lead them to early burnout.

[bobbyp]

Public school teaching used to be a good paying occupation with a bit of prestige thrown in. Now it's just another shit job.

Way to go, America.

[CharlesWT]

With a number of states passing some version of school choice, it will be interesting how the next few years play out.

[CharlesWT]

The amount of money spent per student has about doubled in recent decades. But most of it didn't go to teachers.

[Hartmut]

How much of that went to sports related stuff?

[CharlesWT]

Sports and a lot of administrative overhead.

[JanieM]

No links, but my impression/vague memory is that the proliferation of student loans provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations. nous probably actually knows something about this....

Student loans: another topic....

[Snarki, child of Loki]

" provided piles of money that was spent on explanding administrations"

Absolutely.
High demand, limited market: price goes up.

The institutions collecting the money are (nominally) nonprofits, so can't just do "dividends" or "stock options", and there's an IRS limit on how much they can sock away into an endowment, so the go-to technique for soaking up the extra cash is to pay more admins.

In terms of efficiency, you could haul out any 2 out of 3 higher-ed admins and shoot them, and the overall efficiency would go UP. They're a drag on the system.

[JanieM]

Thank you, Snarki. I mean, surely the money couldn't possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc....

My take on the student loan boondoggle is that the lenders made a profit, the admins thrived and multiplied, students turned into debt slaves whether they got a degree (much less an education) or not, and we paid for it. (Taxpayers; they are federally guarantted loans, right? Not that it's easy to get out of paying them, or so I've heard.)

[wj]

I mean, surely the money couldn't possibly have been spent on more or better paid faculty, improved labs, etc. etc. etc....

Or, radical thought, on reducing tuition and/or increased scholarships. But for that you'd have to think the students were the whole point of the operation.

[wj]

Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.

[JanieM]

wj -- that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible. I was thinking about that when you mentioned the land grant universities the other day. Things are seriously out of whack, to the extent that it's almost not worth talking about stuff like education reform until we do something about the wealth gap.

But of course we should talk about education, because it would be nice to have some notion of what we might do if we ever have the means.

"We" left undefined.....

[wj]

that was possible when we were young. I think it has been a long time since it has been possible.

Being our "real conservative" normally, I opt to go full reactionary here. It ought to be made possible once again!

One of those rare times when the mid-20th century really was better.

[nous]

Just to expand on that a little, my view is that someone should be able to cover room and board (say in the college dorms), all tuition, and still have a bit left over for odds and ends (laundry, the occasional new shirt, the occasional bit of entertainment, etc.) by working 20-25 hours per week. In short, it should be entirely possible to work your way thru school. If tuition is so high at a public university as to make that impossible, then something is seriously wrong.

I agree with almost all of your formulation, except I would say that we need to expand the field of focus. Affordability is not just a matter of tuition being higher, it's also a matter of housing costs being much higher and student wages not keeping up with the cost of living. Tuition would not be *as much of* a problem if the sort of employment open to college students paid enough to keep them out of poverty and allow them to save. It does not.

And, yes, administrative positions have ballooned by 36% since the 90s while full time faculty positions have shrunk, replaced by part-time adjuncts. And faculty compensation has been stagnant over that time, so faculty costs have actually gone down.

Beware when looking for analyses of these trends. Most of the actual studies are behind paywalls or are in need of translation, and most of the public-facing commentary is subject to distortion at the hands of competing agendas (tenured faculty seeking to preserve their system, conservative jeremiad writers, techbros with an app to "fix" academia, etc.). All of the studies I've seen over the years are out of reach and probably a bit out of date. Sorry for that.

If you want college to be more affordable, you have to get things back into something like the middle class affordability of the post-war period in the US. Wages up, housing costs down, inequality down.

[JanieM]

nous's comment prompts me to offer some bare numbers that are a vast oversimplication, but that i think are damningly indicative of what he's talking about.

When i left home for college at MIT in 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour and the annual budget for an undergraduate was about $3,000. (Tuition, room and board, books, a bit of $ budgeted for travel.) You would have had to work 1875 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs -- so, roughly full-time for a year, and not wj's 20-25 hours a week, but that's beside the point I am about to make.

This year the estimated annual undergraduate budget at MIT is $82,730, and the federal minimum wage is $7.25. You would have to work 11,411 hours at minimum wage to earn a year of MIT costs -- six times as much as in 1968.

And I could dig out my after-tax income graph, but not tonight. The rich get richer.....

I tried to find out these numbers for a representative state university, which was Kent State, where a number of my friends went to school. I can't find the old numbers, alas. But my imperssion is that the affordability equation is very much worse for state schools now than it was then.

[JanieM]

KSU budget for an undergrad now: $25,140 -- so 3468 hours to earn a year at the current minimum wage, or not quite twice as many hours as it took to earn a year's budget for MIT in 1968.

My rough memory is that in-state kids paid very minimal tuition in 1968, and as nous says, housing was much more affordable then.

[wj]

Just for comparison.
When I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley (1965 - 1970) the "tuition and fees", for in-state students, was $98 per quarter. I worked under 30 hours per week, a combination of clerical work (work-study, on campus, so no commute costs) and washing dishes. Washing dishes wasn't minimum wage, because we got paid a bit more than the kids on the serving line. Not high paid work, but not quite the minimum.

That covered tuition, room and board at the dorm, books, and all my other expenses.** I wasn't living extravagantly, but I didn't have to worry if I occasionally wanted theater tickets or dinner out, or something like that.

** As a side note, for a couple years in there, I was also paying my mother's tuition, not at a state college, while she got her teaching credential. A bit of a reversal on the usual scenario, I believe. I don't recall that breaking the bank either.

[CharlesWT]

I enrolled in a junior college in 1965. In '66 or '67 they gave me a part-time computer operator job for an embarrassing $3.00 an hour. That's about $28 in today's money. Embarrassing because that's what they were paying the secretaries in the business office. I thought their jobs were a lot harder and required more skills than the computer operator job.

[JanieM]

We have mentioned various angles on the problem of college affordability. Here's what I wrote, my lord it was 11 years ago, in a Crooked Timber thread on homeschooling (which I've linked here before). It's me at my most starry-eyed, but really, most of what we're talking about here doesn't have the remotest chance of happening without much wider cultural changes, so why not dream the widest possible dream?

I believe that “we” — the collective citizenry — should fund, via taxes, a system of lavish support/resources for lifelong education, but without assuming that all the education has to be done in a classroom and/or via book-learning. I believe that the responsibility for educating kids should be shared by parents and the collective citizenry, as represented by some kind of system of oversight, precisely to make sure that kids aren’t abused or neglected. (We already have such a system, of course, and it is responsible for kids in school as much as for kids outside school. How well it works is another question.)

Why should it be as complicated as it is? If people want to study, facilitate it! But no, we have to have this complicated mess of a system, for reasons of tradition and inertia, but also, I suspect underneath, for the same reason the cost of administering our ridiculous health care / health insurance system are much more than administrative costs in other wealthy countries.

For instance:

There are many possible factors for why healthcare prices in the United States are higher than other countries, ranging from the consolidation of hospitals — leading to a lack of competition — to the inefficiencies and administrative waste that derive from the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, the United States spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs —five times more than the average of other wealthy countries and more than we spend on preventive or long-term healthcare.

[my bold]

A quick outing with friend Google yields even higher estimates for per capita administrative costs, but that's much too big a sidetrack for right now, or this thread.

[novakant]

Far too many people only support better education for *their own* kids

Having to navigate the London school system for my kid, I wholeheartedly agree: the amount of money sloshing around, the incredibe pushiness of some parents, the amount status anxiety, pretentiousness and keeping up with the Joneses involved - it's like the seventh circle of hell ...

PS

I thought "snowflake" was a nasty, rightwing term - is it now deemed acceptable in polite society or am I missing something?

[liberal japonicus]

I'm taking it as a ironic comment, snowflake is usually deployed from Right to the left. Am I right to think that it isn't used in the UK as much?

As another question, what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?

[JanieM]

Polite society? Seriously?

I have seen "snowflake" used in all directions. From the Wikipedia entry on the word:

"Snowflake" is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

[snip]

Such terminology refers to people who believe their status as a unique individuals means they are destined for great success, or deserve a special career, with abundant praise and admiration.

Seems right on the button for my hypothetical unsuccessful white applicant to an HBCU who thinks they should have gotten in based on their undeniable "merit." (Somehow I picture that person as the cousin of the woman who brought the wedding website case.)

More from the Wikipedia entry:

Snowflake as a politicized insult is typically used by those on the political right to insult those on the political left.

[snip]

Others have returned the insult back at those with right-wing politics, arguing "oversensitive whiners can be found all over the political spectrum" including President Trump. Comedian Neal Brennan referred to Donald Trump as "the biggest snowflake in America",[20] while a January 2017 opinion piece from The Guardian refers to President Trump as "Snowflake-in-Chief"[21] and CNN commentator Anthony Kapel "Van" Jones called Trump "President Snowflake" based on his response to the FBI's Russia probe in May 2017.[22]

If doing what The Guardian does is an offense against polite society these days, then proper standards for offensiveness are dead. ;-)

[novakant]

'Polite society' was used ironically, yes.

'Snowflake' apparently not.

So the term has made a journey from the rightwing to the center/left. I grant you that some on the center-left use it to turn the tables on the right, but the term's origins in Brexit and Trump, as well as its nasty meaning (don't be sensitive) still aligns it very much with the right, so I'm not sure if it's wise for those not on the right to adopt it.

[novakant]

Heres a bit more from Wikipedia to bolster my case, I especially don't like how the term is insulting young and/or sensitive people:

The terms "generation snowflake" and "snowflake generation" are frequently used in reference to use of trigger warnings and safe spaces, or to describe young adults as anti-free speech, specifically in reference to a practice referred to as deplatforming.[15][16][17] It has also been used to refer to a reported increase in mental health issues among young adults.[18]

A 2017 article from Think Progress commented: "The insult expanded to encompass not just the young, but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of 'safe spaces, too fragile'".

Shelly Haslam-Ormerod, senior lecturer in mental health and wellbeing at Edge Hill University, strongly criticised the use of the term, arguing in The Conversation that it stigmatises the mental health challenges faced by today's young people in an uncertain world and noting that even children aged under 10 have been unfairly labelled "snowflakes" in tabloid articles.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)

[JanieM]

It's a word with a meaning that fit the point I was trying to make, so I used it. It wasn't used to describe a specific or even real person; it was used to label a person I made up practically to fit the definition of "snowflake." (See context.)

It wasn't "ironic" and I don't consider it "nasty." I'll cop to snarky, and if snark is the worst we come to in responding to present circumstances, that's virtue enough for me.

If you don't think it's wise to adopt it, don't adopt it.

[novakant]

what is the deal with Farage and his bank account?

Apparently, rather than the big conspiracy he and the tabloids tried to publicise, his balance just fell below the required minimum, lol.

You need 3 million in savings or 1 million in investments with the bank for a Coutts account (and it's not worth it in the first place).

[novakant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039

[liberal japonicus]

Interesting point. I'm wondering how the phrase would have been put if 'snowflake' wasn't used.

I suppose HBCUs aren't getting floods of non-Black applicants, but what if some white ______ who didn't get in sued one of them...?

It might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of a word (applicant? applying student?) that fits there and _wouldn't_ give undeserved 'standing' to the person. It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury. Which echoes my question of what standing means anymore if I can conjure up some anonymous applicants who feel injured enough to demand justice, but don't want anyone to know that it was them who complained or if a forged email post (from a guy who is married and works as a web designer) is unable to sink a case.

[JanieM]

lj -- i am totally with you on the question of standing. It is just mind-boggling.

Here's something related, which maybe has already been linked here -- i'm not keeping up very well with where I've seen different bits of info:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/03/metro/harvard-legacy-admissions-supreme-court/

So there are people who are not just letting this stand unchallenged, one way or another.

[McKinneyTexas]

ObWi 10-15 years ago was no place for the easily triggered. Not now. The nasty meaning of snowflake, yes very troubling. Unlike fascist, racist, blah, blah, blah and blah almost without end, snowflake is a really, really bad thing to call someone. Here is a factually recounted story of "non-snowflakes" being tolerant. Be sure to watch the video of the pro-choice, non-snowflake guy kicking the pro-life women. It's super-inclusive! Happy 4th of July!

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/how-pro-life-students-fought-violence-harassment-with-compassion/

[nous]

I always took “snowflake” to have come into usage via Fight Club:

“You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We're all part of the same compost heap. We're all singing, all dancing crap of the world.”

From there it was widely adopted by the usual reddit and 4chan types to be weaponized against any pkea for compassion or fairness.

[Girl from the North Country]

Personally, I don't mind "snowflake" to describe someone who needs special "protection" from distressing events that once might have been considered just part of the rough and tumble of normal life. I'm thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie's example, or requiring a trigger warning before reading a book which has e.g. racism in it (I am frequently brought up short by the naked antisemitism in certain Victorian literature, for example, but do not suffer adverse consequences as a result and on the contrary regard it as educational), or having to be protected from hearing unfashionable or currently unacceptable opinions. Child mental health practitioners now emphasise that resilience is one of the most important qualities a child can have, or have had encouraged, and you cannot develop it if you are diligently protected from all adverse experiences.

The word was originally used by the right against the left, but applies equally now to people who, for example, think that teaching Critical Race Theory is an example of racism against white people. It is now often used in the UK, I think.

For the avoidance of doubt, (and to avoid any impression that I am a "fuck your feelings" kind of person) I do absolutely believe in obloquy and in some circumstances legal jeopardy attaching to e.g. racist or sexist speech and behaviour, but I also believe that the general principle of protecting other people's feelings at all costs is a slippery slope to something much worse or more dangerous than many well meaning people realise.

[Girl from the North Country]

Oh God, I posted without reading the few preceding comments. As occasionally happens, it is galling to find oneself temporarily in bed with the holders of certain kinds of opinions, particularly when they are expressed in such snarky ways. And believe me, this can sometimes apply to left/liberal as well as rightwing opinions....

[JanieM]

I'm thinking of experiencing an unsuccessful college application, as in Janie's example

I don't know if we're talking past each other, but my "snowflake" epithet referred not to distress over an unsuccessful application per se, but to a hypothetical white applicant asserting that they were unsuccessful because of bias against white people. And -- the underlying assumption that such a person would be operating on the theory that they couldn't possibly have been turned down on the "merits."

It's the flip side of white applicants who think that "their" place was given away to an undeserving non-white applicant because of affirmative action.

[JanieM]

Or not the flip side, really, but the same side....

[Girl from the North Country]

No, Janie, I understood that, but probably didn't express myself well. Your hypothetical white applicant might indeed not suffer actual distress, and might think the only possible explanation was bias against them, but it would be as a result of an adverse decision (such as all of us have to suffer at some time or other). And of course, that is not even considering the possibility that such a hypothetical white applicant might have from the beginning had the strategy and intention of claiming bias if the decision went against them. Which is the kind of bad faith which is currently all too believable...

[wj]

It would be unsurprising to find some person to getting pushed to apply simply to get the school to reject them and then claim injury.

Janie, lj, I'm not at all sure why anyone would bother to do that. Well, unless they were looking to cash in, of course.

But as a way to attack affirmative action or whatever replaces it? Why bother? As we saw in the wedding website case, there's absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth. Since you apparently don't need an injury to have standing, why both with anything else?

I mean, the guy who supposedly asked for the gay wedding website a) isn't gay, b) is already happily married and he and his wife have a couple of kids (and another on the way), and c) never had any contact whatsoever with the plaintiff. Not that the Court cared about such details. The whole thing was totally imaginary. In short, totally Trumpian.

[nous]

I personally reserve my use of "snowflake" for when dealing with edgelords and the Fuck Your Feelings right when they are complaining bitterly about things like Pride celebrations.

In the same spirit, I love pointing out to the Fight Club MRA types that the book is clearly about the schizoid nature of being a young, closeted male homosexual.

They use these things as weapons because they fear these things inside themselves. I have no problem letting that implication hang there between us, so long as I am not stigmatizing compassion or being ableist.

It's a good opportunity to flip the grounds and praise the inner fortitude of pluralism.

[Girl from the North Country]

On the issue of terminology, I love "edgelords" (I have had to look it up once again). What a useful, and euphonious, word!

[wj]

It never occurred to me that "snowflake" might have anything to do with uniqueness. Everywhere I recall encountering it, it was about extreme fragility. In particular, about the target being somehow traumatized (or, at least, claiming to be traumatized) by a trivial comment or event.

[nous]

wj - that's how the epithet evolved, for obvious contextual reasons, but it started in the edgelord fora as a "you're not special" framing.

Ironic, since their grievances are entirely grounded in the idea that they are the forgotten heroes of civilization, now shat upon for the crime of being young and male.

[nous]

And the second part of that - the you are compost part - is the sentiment that is fueling the nihilism of the young male mass shooter. There's a deep nihilism in it.

If you want to understand the anti-SJW alt-right, you need to understand how and why they embraced Fight Club and The Matrix as their foundational myths. The alt-right is a sick combination of Red Pills and Project Mayhem.

[CharlesWT]

As we saw in the wedding website case, there's absolutely no requirement that the incident, or the participants, ever existed. Just make up a case out of whole cloth.

Sometimes both sides of a dispute will agree to pursue a test case. I don't if that's the case in this case but it's hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.

[Tony P.]

Perhaps McKinney could weigh in: what's the difference, if any, between a test case and a hypothetical? Are courts, at any level, supposed to decide a hypothetical case? Does it matter whether the opposing lawyers agree to pretend it's not hypothetical?

--TP

[wj]

it's hard to believe the case made it all the way to the Supreme Cort without the defendants or the courts not knowing that there was no real plaintiff.

Oh, there was a real plaintiff: a prospective web designer. She hadn't suffered any actual harm, not having designed any websites. But she claimed she planned to, except for her concern about the nondiscrimination law.** The Court decided she had standing anyway.

The purported gay client only surfaced in an Appendix to the original filing; he was previously anonymous. It provided contact information about him, that is, for a real person. But apparent nobody from the state thought to actually contact him. After all, there was really a person by that name at that address....

** Any bets on whether she actually does so now? Or merely milks her celebrity on the MAGA circuit.

[Michael Cain]

Courts will occasionally grant standing in cases where the plaintiff can make the argument that the harm they will suffer is from the state prosecuting them for violating a law because the state has done so in similar situations in the past. In this one, there was no question that refusing to design a web site for a same-sex wedding was a violation of the Colorado law, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.

In one of the other threads I believe someone argued that a firm in the business of providing speech can always turn down a customer because the government can never coerce speech. There are likely to be additional cases in the future while the courts work out exactly what constitutes protected speech. From memory, so suspect, but they've established cake decorations and web sites. I've raised the question before but... if I'm in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?

[wj]

can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?

You mean like you find the government of the country where it is made offensive? Or the state (e.g. Texas) where it's made? Or the executives of the company which makes it?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I "cutting and styling hair" an expressive/creative expression?

Is putting food on a plate to serve to someone an expressive/creative expression?

...and down the Jim Crow rabbit hole we go.

[CharlesWT]

, and Colorado has a history of such prosecutions.

I seem to remember when Colorado had some libertarian tendencies.

[JanieM]

If I am a website designer, and a baker comes to me and asks me to make a website for her business that includes the information that she will not bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can I, on the basis of my non-religiously based conscience, refuse on the basis that I think she's a flaming bigot and I can't be compelled to reproduce her bigoted speech for her?

From lj's original SCOTUSblog link, it seems like I might have a chance on speech grounds, but I can't imagine I'd have a chance -- especially with this SCOTUS -- on freedom of conscience grounds. We have freedom *of* religion in this country, but as far as I can tell, freedom *from* religion is nowhere in sight. If it were, religiously based bigots wouldn't be able to turn gay people or women into second-class citizens in the name of their religious beliefs (or women as second-class citizens either; don't get me started).

[JanieM]

(Wrong thread, sorry.)

[JanieM]

if I'm in the business of writing real-time embedded code and have a public presence soliciting business, can I refuse business because I have a problem of conscience over the device someone wants to pay me to program?

IANAL, so this is all just musing.

I don't see where you'd get to the kind of conflict there is in the website and wedding cake cases, where one set of rights (the right of gay people to be free of discrimination and to participate in public life on the same basis as straight people) is (allegedly) clashing with another set of tights (free speech, religion, whatever).

Suppose someone asked you to write some code to help them make a bomb -- surely you don't have an obligation to help people make tools for committing crimes. Suppose someone asked you to make a device that was legal but that made air pollution worse in your area, and you disapproved of that. I don't think people have a legal right to make polluting devices, even if their devices don’t violate any laws, so there's no conflict of rights there either. ????? (I may not be thinking this through correctly, or totally understanding what you have in mind.)

Suppose the website woman wanted to put on her own website that she would refuse to use the color blue in her designs for her customers. There's no legal right to have your wedding website in blue, so there's no conflict of rights there.

[JanieM]

Maybe closer to what you're wondering -- suppose a website designer would only make websites for bakeries and and restaurants. Would car repair shops have a right to demand that she make websites for them as well? Surely not....

[JanieM]

On the other hand, if you refused to help make devices for black people.......

Which brings me to another hypothetical. I believe the website woman said she'd be glad to make websites for gay people, just not for their weddings, because she had religious objections to that.

So, what if she had religious objections to interracial marriages?

Letting people treat other people as second-class citizens because THEY violate YOUR religious beliefs is just ... wrong. I don't care what the Constitution says, it's a can of worms that will either pit everyone against everyone (what if I don't believe people should eat meat on Friday... or eat meat at all.... can i refuse to design a website for a restaurant... etc.) --- or result in what the real purpose is in the first place, which is to have self-styled "Christians" be the boss of everyone.

[Bobbyp]

Car repair shops are not a protected class as defined by statute, much as they would like to be. The jury is still out on snowflakes. : )

[JanieM]

Bobbyp -- that's the bottom line answer to Michael's question, right?

Interesting that political parties aren't a protected class. I could open a cafe and refuse to serve Clickbait voters, right? That would be fun, until it wasn't.

[Hartmut]

Hadn't we a basic agreemenet that there is a difference between bespoke and generic services? A lot of hypothetical cases would thus disappear.
Of course not those of 'MY constitutional G*d-given right to discriminate against YOU ranks above your fictitious 'right' to non-discrimination'. Those will still be welcomed by some courts.

Btw, couldn't courts, judges and justices refuse cases on the same grounds? [not to be confused with individual recusal but 'I don't take cases that would force me to rule in favor of people I do not approve of on religious grounds.]

[Pro Bono]

The dissent says "The company could, for example, offer only wedding websites with biblical quotations describing marriage as between one man and one woman."

Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as "give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons"?

[JanieM]

Pro Bono -- I asked that question (without the quotation) in my 11:18 last night. And I am pretty sure that's where a non-negligible % of the people in the US want to go.

In a word, backward.

We're well on our way. The Dahlia Lithwick article that Nigel linked in the other thread (thanks, Nigel!) lays the direction and mechanisms out pretty clearly.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/supreme-court-john-roberts-winning-americans-losing.html

In the "saying the quiet parts out loud" department, I don't think they're quite there yet with race the way they are with trans people and drag queens and, yes, the rest of us weirdos.

Yet.

[Hartmut]

This being a nonessential (and, if generic, non-bespoke) service, I'd say that would be an option. But they could not refuse to sell that to persons they dislike. In other words, if an interracial couple would actually want such a website, the company could not say no. Or more extreme: if Jews wanted to buy antisemtic merchandise from a company run by and for neonazis, the company would have to sell them that but could not be forced to customize the stuff.
That would not be necessarily absurd, the Jewish customers could be a film company looking for props or a non-discrimination group that wants the stuff for an awareness campaign.

Hm, can capitalists refuse to sell the commies the rope that the latter want to string them up with?
(to paraphrase a famous quote)

[Hartmut]

Btw that reminds me of an old joke:
A dirt-poor Russian Jew finds a friend (as poor as him) reading an antisemitic newspaper. "Why do you read that vile stuff?", he asks. "Oh, when I feel really depressed about my situation, it's uplifting to read how mighty and powerful I actually am."

[McKinneyTexas]

Does it follow that a company whose owner has a sincere religious belief opposing interracial marriage could offer only wedding websites with a biblical quotation such as "give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons"

Highly unlikely and, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, not one case has come up in which a person claimed a first amendment right to refuse services to a person of another race.

Colorado makes it a crime (or a violation of civil law) to refuse services based on a variety of criteria. Christian and Muslim opposition to gay marriage predates the notion of gay marriage by centuries. President Obama famously declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. In Colorado, a traditional Christian or Muslim can be prosecuted for refusing to deliver marriage-related services to gay people. This and birth control are the only 1st Amendment issues I recall SCOTUS addressing when the state sought to compel someone to act against their teachings. Both are areas of well-known, specific tenets of faith that, for some reason, some people just can't leave alone. We were told before gay marriage became legal--I argued this point myself--that we should just live and let live. It was a persuasive argument; however, some are not content with that, it seems.

The race thing is a red herring. It hasn't come up and almost certainly won't come up. The ruling addresses a very narrow slice of commercial activity in which there is a long-recognized religious overlap. Marriage and dietary restrictions were features of religion long before the state took any meaningful interest. Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer. Ditto, a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu wedding service provider: an activist Christian could not compel any of these to "change sides" and render Christian-themed wedding services nor could an atheist demand a non-sectarian wedding. Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith's purview.

The more interesting question(s) involve a woman's right to receive intimate commercial services from a woman or a man as opposed to a trans-woman or to preserve private, traditionally (and for good practical reasons as well) single sex facilities and spaces. This is especially interesting given that the left wing of SCOTUS is all female.

[bobbyp]

Marriage aside, one likely could not compel a Halal or Kosher butcher to process a hog or a Hindu butcher to process a steer.

Well, duh. Nobody is using the power of the state to compel Mexican restaurants to also provide a kosher menue, either.

However, if your Mexican restaurant is open to the public, you cannot refuse to serve a gay couple (their status affirmed by LAW) on the basis of "religously held beliefs".

This is a relatively simple concept.

PS: The last paragraph of McKinney's squib is a tell.

[JanieM]

Put differently, the Constitution protects faith-specific service providers in areas that traditionally fall within that faith's purview.

What about allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills?

https://www.singlecare.com/blog/can-a-pharmacist-refuse-to-fill-a-prescription/

Or this:

Birth control benefits rules for employer-provided coverage

If you work for a religious employer
Health plans sponsored by certain exempt religious employers, like churches and other houses of worship, don’t have to cover contraceptive methods and counseling.

If you work for an exempt religious employer and use contraceptive services, you may have to pay for them out-of-pocket. Contact your employer or benefits administrator for more information.

From https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/

Not weddings, not food.

As for the trans issue, I was called "sir" five times in the San Francisco (!!!) airport on a trip last spring, and looked at askance in the "ladies" room. It's not only trans-women who are going to be affected by whatever decisions are made about these issues. Florida just passed a law that says not that you have to prove (i.e. no self-id-ing) you're a trans-woman to use the ladies room (which in itself would basically mean everyone would have to be ready to prove that), but that everyone has to use the room of the gender they were assigned at birth (ditto).

This expresses my concerns quite nicely:

From here:

The bills don’t specify any protocol to follow when either challenging someone or being challenged by another individual in these spaces. They do open the door to bothering anyone in a bathroom based on assumptions about their gender.

“There’s no good way for businesses to enforce these laws without invading everyone’s privacy,” Gross said.

Wait until the Moms for Liberty crowd turn their attention away from books and toward bathrooms. Or maybe they already have.

[Hartmut]

Again, there is a difference between refusing a service to a specific person that one offers to the general public and refusing a special service. One cannot (usually) be forced to offer a service but if one does offer a service one cannot (usually) refuse it selectively (unless the law explicitly restricts it). "I sell X but not Y" is different from "I sell to X but not Y". And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).

[JanieM]

My 9:43 could have used an editor. My 20-month-old companion declined the work. Hopefully it's all clear enough.

[JanieM]

And if something inevitably comes with a job, one must be willing to do it or quit it (aka Amish bus driver rule).

No so. See pharmacists.