As far as I can tell we haven’t gotten that yet.
-
-
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @JamesSurowiecki and
Well Jeet and I obviously agree to that. Who hasn't gotten it?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jholbo1 @JamesSurowiecki and
You dont appear to agree that a key professed distinction (according to CRT) between civil rights thought and CRT turns on disagreements over disparate impact of the type in the Supreme Court quote.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebastian_Hols @JamesSurowiecki and
Please articulate the disagreement as you see it. My view would be this: CRT and traditional civil rights thinking can both get behind the reasons for the 1982 amendment to the VRA, and the thinking behind "Thornburg", as far as it goes.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
One obvious difference is that the opinion in Griggs held that job requirements that have a disparate impact can only be used by employers if they are "reasonably related" to job performance.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
How would that be relevant in the AZ case? No one is arguing that the AZ measures make real sense, from a prevent-actual-voting-fraud angle. They only clear the lowest bar of 'rational basis'. But 'reasonably related' would be a higher test than that minimum.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
Right - which is why you don't need the insights of Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw to find the AZ measures to be a violation of the VRA. You just need civil-rights-era jurisprudence - or just the text of Section 2, as amended.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
Hence Jeet's tweet, making this point. The point of the anti-CRT stuff is to be very sloppy, by design, to the point where all this other stuff is CRT as well. Because that's the ballgame: to roll back the traditional stuff as well as doubleplusungood CRT. Cf. this SC decision.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @jholbo1 @Sebastian_Hols and
I agree that the anti-CRT stuff is sloppy by design. I also think some progressives respond to conservative attacks by trying to domesticate genuinely radical projects/policies (like crt, 1619, defund), and that's a mistake. ("Radical" there is a description, not a criticism.)
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Sebastian_Hols and
Agree with Jeet. 1619 is just not radical. A couple people were wrong about a couple things. But that's separate. CRT is a mix of sane and insane and radical and non-radical, but it contains a lot of radical and non-radical sanity.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Right, it's a heterogenous body of thought. And some of the most extreme parts of it can just as easily lead to a kind of pessimistic conservatism as to radicalism.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.