I have a problem. I got the wrong life. Back in the day, my parents ordered me from Amazon. That’s how it was done, but I got a crappy life.
You read about this in the history books, though some tell me they are being rewritten to conceal it.
Amazon messed up. Entire groups of children went into one racial pile or another. The predominant race figured they could take advantage of those with dark skin. Many did, and many still do.
The whole thing sucked, and the suckage continues.
Gerrymandering, poor schools, discrimination, distant polling places, and more.
The system impacted even some folks who became famous.
A white guy named Samuel wanted whiteness and all that came with it. A black fellow, Clarence, would have been white but for a clerical error. You get the idea.
Once upon a time, Clarence remembered the days when he expressed gratitude for benefits to people of color that he now decries.
According to the July 1, 2023, Washington Post:
‘God only knows where I would be today’ if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are ‘critical to minorities and women in this society.’
‘These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years,’ Thomas, then the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) chairman, said in 1983.
Ah, well, we all change our minds, don’t we? But we are stuck with a significant problem since the Supreme Court gutted the use of affirmative action for college admissions.
They made it harder to reduce continuing unfairnesses to people of color.
But the solution to this is simple.
The Supreme Court, now the most commanding institution in the U.S., should voluntarily move into the ghetto in different locations around our fair land. Soon after, I’m sure, they will say, “Home sweet home.”
Six months ought to be enough for each one to acquire a sense of what life is like living there. Maybe add another 182 or 183 days in a middle-class neighborhood of different hues and tones.
Perhaps after that, the unique six will stop saying their legal opinions will allow disadvantaged minorities to catch up with whites quickly.
That’s a lot of ground to cover.
The six people who believe such things, with one exception, have little idea of life as a person of color.
Why? Because they’ve never lived it. The rest of the court endured some personal experiences of discrimination of different varieties: Black, Hispanic, and Jewish.
The half-dozen who voted against affirmative action comprise a club of privileged members.
This esteemed group wishes us to think they understand the lives of those they judge as if they survived roughnecked neighborhoods and poor schools and got stopped by the police for “driving while black.”
The justices doubtless will rush to sign on to their new ghettoized existence. They will be delighted to remove their robes and become one of the guys or girls, taking small apartments to learn an essential lesson.
The princes of the courts will soon adapt to walking a long way to find decent groceries at fair prices.
Maybe Samuel and Clarence, John and Amy, Neil and Brett will speed to tutor the local kids using a book from the public school library. Perhaps this crowd will even send their grandchildren to the same schools.
Imagine the life of a Supreme Court judge: no boss, a lifetime job with a sizeable income until he wants to retire, and friends who give him gifts or free trips ahead of cases in which they are involved.
Depending on the lawsuit and their generous buddy, the entrance to their domain ought to feature a sign:
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here
What is left? Some of these individuals act like God without godliness. Regrettably, their attitude is that justice, no matter what they decide, means “just us.”
=========
The first image is a Judicial Services Clerk’s Black Court Robe With a Pleated White Flap by ThieVale.
The U.S. Supreme Court 2011 Caricature includes Left to right around the circle. Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Chief Justice), Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy (Center). It is the work of DonkeyHotey.
Both images are sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Excellent!
Thanks, Steve!
Wow – what a great idea and a powerful commentary. We spend a lot of time talking about who’s is, has or wants to be president and (it seems to me) comparatively little time talking about our supreme court. Of course we can’t elect them directly but recent decisions show how much they impact our lives, values and sense of fairness. And maybe Citizens United impacted how much they even get to determine their own balance in a roundabout way.
Whatever it is, I believe your idea of adding a ghetto housing clause to the contract is a great one. A very thought-provoking and well-written post as always, Dr. Stein!
I think you are right, Wynne. Over 30 years ago, Charles Taylor, in “The Ethics of Authenticity,” wrote about many of the troubles he saw on the horizon, including the imbalance among our three branches of government.
Taylor believed that the growing inability of the two major political parties to come to compromise legislation, left them (and us) with a judicial system that rendered all or nothing outcomes as to the direction of the country. Time has proven him correct.
Congress is often stalemated, but the Supreme Court has, in effect, become the major arbiter of differences between the two parties, and often an unchallenged bulldozer to laws that have been on the books for at least half a century, throwing us back into a world many thought they had traveled beyond.
Thanks, Wynne.
What a powerful and important post. Thank you for capturing the frustration and angst – and for offering perfect suggestions and antidotes for shaking sense into the senseless. I am very nearly turning away in disgust, and I know that serves no one. This isn’t the time to retreat — we need to rally – and the pointed wisdom you offer feels just right. Reality checks!
Thank you, Vicki. As you suggest, turning away leaves the world in the hands of others who may not direct it in the best possible way.
Yeats’s post WWI poem “The Second Coming,” includes this:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
I wonder if you and Wynne might consider a month dedicated to something alligned to your comment, including this one: “This isn’t the time to retreat — we need to rally … .”
Oh my…what a beautiful idea. Might you join us in another podcast and/or post on the topic, too?
I will do whatever you ask. Either or both. Thanks for asking!
Excellent! More to follow as we loop in the wonderful Wynne. 😉
👍
I don’t understand this post (I probably didn’t go to the right school, and I definitely don’t have the right letters behind my name). While I understand needing to voice disappointment in the decision, I do not understand how belittling the judges or poking fun at them helps in any way. Rallying for a cause is great! … but please lead with love and kindness. “Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.” ― Rumi
Thank you, Teddy. I appreciate your point of view, but satire (which was part of what I was shooting for) is fair game from where I stand. It goes back at least as far as “Gulliver’s Travels,” though I am not comparing myself to Jonathan Swift. The judges have heard far worse from many.
I’ve also made a point I think was worth making: do these men (and one woman) have sufficient contact with minorities and people of color to judge them, or do they simply assume that time is up for special consideration and they are on their own?
From this point, there are two hopeful possibilities. That the “legacy” students (those whose parents attended the same school and likely made contributions to it after their graduation) be either reduced in size or eliminated to make room for applicants of all races to obtain consideration if they come from low-income families.
Thanks again, Teddy.
Thank you for your time and your kind reply. Linnie (my real name!)
Thank you, Linnie. I try to be responsive to every comment I receive. In most situations, I believe kindness is a great virtue in short supply, as you do. Based on what you wrote, I’ll bet you went to a fine school and certainly have a command of written language. My target audience certainly didn’t include the judges, who are doubtless buried in invective and will never come across my blog post. In any case, be well.
right … i did not think the judges were your target audience. however, i do not understand how forcing them to live in the ghetto will help? i’m guessing the assumption is that it will open their eyes to certain injustices. but then there’s also the assumption that living in the ghetto, and seeing the injustices, would make them care. there’s also the assumption that people from the ghetto care about the injustices of the justices. and since i spent my first seventeen years in the ghetto, i know for a fact that some of us ghetto-dwellers find it amusing that some individuals feel as if they need to save us– as if we care about yale or harvard (not sure i have the correct schools).
but yes, i did go to college. and yes, i realize us ghetto-dwellers likely weren’t your targeted audience either. but your message did reach me. and yes, i still find the message not so kind (but for different reasons other than the pointed out fact that you were being satirical).
i do, however, appreciate the fact that you rally on behalf of the disadvantaged. and i will always, always stand by your right to say whatever the heck you feel you need to say! kind regards, linnie
Thanks, Linnie. I did not say anyone should be forced to do anything. Indeed, concerning the question of the justices moving into the ghetto, I used the word “voluntarily.” Again, satire.
It is also a rather indirect comment on the fact that the justices are lifetime appointments and cannot be forced to retire (except under extreme circumstances) or recuse themselves from cases in which they are involved in a conflict of interest.
As you know, there has been much reporting on some of the justices (and/or their spouses) taking vacations and accepting gifts from people who represent such conflicted interests, as well as spouses employed by or consulting for right-wing political organizations. The justices I have mentioned minimize the importance of this.
It is not only Harvard and similar schools that have legacy students. One other point. I think it is likely that the justices in question are quite fixed in their opinions. I agree that moving into the ghetto (again, satire) would not change their views.
Thank you once more for your thoughtful comments, Linnie. As someone who lived in the ghetto, your thoughts are especially worth listening to.
regarding the word “forced”– yes, my mistake. likely, my brain skipped the word “voluntarily”– as that’s just ludicrous! i see the satire now. thank you … had to smile. 🙂
Yet another disturbing decision by our Supreme Court justices. As you suggest, it would be great if each one of them could “voluntarily move into the ghetto in different locations around our fair land.”
Thank you, Rosaliene. I am holding my breath for the moment they move out of their grand homes and into something more modest. But, as I wrote in response to Teddy’s comment, there is perhaps a bit more hope that the colleges and universities will reduce the enrollment of legacy students to open space for those from financially disadvantaged families of all colors. Of course, this will probably cost them donations, which might come in the way of such suggestions.