Reforming College Admissions: Legacy Admissions and the Harvard Tax Debate

 

Legacy admissions, where being born into the right family is the ultimate acceptance letter, is like the colleges are saying, 'We've reserved a spot just for you – and by 'you,' we mean your parents.’ No wonder such legacy preferences has tended to perpetuate the elite lineage at the expense of a more diverse and equitable student body.

In the world of college admissions, few practices are as controversial as legacy admissions. These admissions policies grant preferential treatment to the children of alumni, allowing them a higher chance of acceptance into prestigious institutions such as Harvard University, Princeton University, and other Ivy league universities. The idea is rooted in the belief that applicants with family ties to a college will be more likely to uphold its values, traditions, and foster alumni engagement. However, as discussions around equity and diversity in higher education gain momentum, the legacy admissions system is facing increased scrutiny.

Recently, a groundbreaking proposal known as the "Harvard Tax" has been introduced, targeting legacy admissions and aiming to hold institutions accountable for their use of this practice. The proposal, if enacted, would require institutions with significant legacy admissions policies to contribute substantial funds annually, reflecting the financial benefits they reap from admitting legacy students.

At the forefront of this proposal is Harvard University, one of the most prestigious and wealthiest institutions in the world. With an enormous endowment and a substantial legacy admissions rate, Harvard would face an annual contribution of a staggering $103 million under the proposed tax. Other prestigious institutions like Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, and Boston College would also be affected, facing contributions ranging from $2 million to $8.4 million annually.

The primary goal of the Harvard Tax is to address the perceived inequities arising from legacy admissions. Critics argue that legacy preferences perpetuate privilege, favoring applicants with family connections rather than academic merit. This practice, they assert, undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity that should guide college admissions. Legacy admissions have been criticized for perpetuating the concentration of power and wealth within a select group of families, potentially limiting access to prestigious institutions for other qualified students from diverse backgrounds.

Proponents of legacy admissions counter these arguments by highlighting the importance of maintaining strong ties between colleges and their alumni community. They argue that legacy preferences foster a sense of belonging and tradition, encouraging continued financial support from grateful families. Moreover, they suggest that legacy applicants often exhibit higher levels of commitment to the institution, which can contribute to a vibrant and engaged campus environment.

However, the equity and diversity concerns raised by the Harvard Tax proposal cannot be dismissed lightly. As access to higher education becomes increasingly competitive, the weight given to legacy status can create barriers for students who do not have familial ties to prestigious colleges. It can also reinforce existing patterns of privilege, exacerbating the underrepresentation of marginalized groups in higher education.

The proposed tax presents an opportunity for institutions to reevaluate their admissions policies and consider the implications of legacy preferences on their student body's diversity and inclusivity. It raises essential questions about the balance between tradition and progress, between honoring alumni legacies and ensuring equal access to educational opportunities. While the Harvard Tax is an important step toward addressing legacy admissions' impact on fairness and diversity, it is essential to recognize that it is just one part of the broader conversation on improving the college admissions process. Many advocates for change in higher education emphasize the need for holistic admissions practices that consider applicants' diverse talents, experiences, and potential contributions to campus life.

Not only that, the proposed Harvard Tax has prompted a broader examination of other admissions practices, such as early admissions, which can also impact diversity and access. Early admissions programs, while separate from legacy admissions, have been criticized for contributing to a "two-tiered" system in which some students receive an advantage by applying early and potentially securing spots before regular applicants even have a chance to apply. This practice can disproportionately benefit students from privileged backgrounds who have access to resources and guidance throughout the application process.

As we navigate these complex issues, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of any policy changes. While the Harvard Tax proposes to hold institutions accountable for their legacy admissions practices, it may also lead to unintended consequences, such as increased financial strain on colleges and universities, potentially impacting their ability to provide financial aid and support to students from all backgrounds.

In addition to addressing legacy admissions, there is a growing call for colleges and universities to take proactive steps to diversify their student bodies and create more inclusive learning environments. This can include actively recruiting students from underrepresented communities, providing targeted support and mentorship programs, and reviewing admissions criteria to ensure that they do not inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequalities.

It is worth noting that improving access to higher education is not solely the responsibility of individual institutions. Policymakers, community leaders, and educators must work collaboratively to address disparities in primary and secondary education that can create barriers to college admissions. Efforts to improve K-12 education, increase college readiness programs, and expand financial aid opportunities are all critical components of a comprehensive approach to promoting equity and diversity in higher education.

Ultimately, the legacy admissions debate is a reflection of the broader societal conversation about fairness, privilege, and social mobility. It challenges us to confront the structural inequalities that persist in our educational systems and society at large. As we navigate these complex issues, it is crucial to engage in constructive dialogue and seek common ground to create a higher education system that is truly accessible and equitable for all.

Towards a Fairer Future

As the legacy admissions debate continues, it is essential to consider the potential alternatives and reforms that could strike a balance between tradition and progress. One option gaining traction is the adoption of "holistic admissions" practices. Holistic admissions take into account a broader range of an applicant's qualities beyond academic achievements and test scores. By considering factors such as extracurricular activities, personal essays, letters of recommendation, and life experiences, in addition to test scores, colleges can gain a more comprehensive understanding of each applicant's potential and unique contributions to the campus community.

Holistic admissions have the potential to level the playing field and open doors for students from diverse backgrounds who may not have had the same access to resources or opportunities as their more privileged peers. By focusing on an applicant's potential, resilience, and personal growth, holistic admissions can help identify talented students who may not have achieved stellar academic records in high school but possess the drive and determination to thrive in a college environment.

Moreover, institutions can implement need-blind admissions policies, which ensure that a student's financial need is not a factor in the admission decision. Need-blind policies remove economic barriers, ensuring that talented students are not turned away due to financial limitations. Pairing need-blind admissions with robust financial aid programs can empower students from low-income backgrounds to pursue higher education without the fear of overwhelming debt.

Another consideration in the quest for diversity and inclusion is the importance of investing in outreach and recruitment efforts. Colleges can actively engage with underrepresented communities, forging partnerships with high schools and community organizations to identify and nurture potential applicants. By building relationships and providing support throughout the application process, colleges can create a more inclusive and welcoming environment for students from all walks of life.

While the Harvard Tax proposal serves as a significant conversation starter, the legacy admissions debate should not solely focus on punitive measures. Instead, it should be an opportunity to reflect on the values and priorities of higher education institutions and explore meaningful ways to promote fairness, diversity, and social mobility.

The legacy admissions versus early admissions debate remains a multifaceted and polarizing issue in the realm of higher education. The proposed Harvard Tax has ignited discussions about the role of legacy preferences in college admissions and has encouraged institutions to reevaluate their practices in the pursuit of greater fairness and diversity. As we navigate the complexities of this debate, it is vital to consider holistic admissions practices, need-blind policies, and proactive outreach efforts to create a more equitable and inclusive higher education system. When colleges and policymakers work collaboratively towards these goals, they can shape a brighter future where all students have an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams and contribute to society's progress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Buyinza, A. (2023, July 7). Lawmakers Seek to Tax Harvard University, Other Schools that Favor Legacy Applicants. Retrieved from Mass Live: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2023/07/lawmakers-seek-to-tax-harvard-university-other-schools-that-favor-legacy-applicants.html

CNBC. (2023, July 25). Education Department Opens Investigation into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/25/education-department-opens-investigation-into-harvard-legacy-admissions.html

Lorin, J. (2023, July 5). Harvard and Other Wealthy Massachusetts Schools With Legacy Admissions Hit With Tax Proposal that Would Raise Hundreds of Millions. Retrieved from Fortune: https://fortune.com/2023/07/05/harvard-legacy-admissions-wealthy-massachusetts-schools-tax-proposal/

Picchi, A. (2023, 7 7). Massachusetts Lawmakers Target "Affirmative Action for the Wealthy" . Retrieved from CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/legacy-admissions-harvard-tax-massachusetts/

 

 

 

Buhari’s Embarrassing Legacy: A Tale of Failure

 

Buhari's tenure cast a long shadow of economic and psychological distress upon Nigerians, leaving them stranded in a desert of hopelessness. As the thorny vines of corruption and economic trauma entwine the nation, will Bola Tinubu (whose presidency is still being contested due to massive vote rigging and other irregularities) be the steadfast gardener who uproots its destructive roots and cultivates a new era of transparency?

When Muhammadu Buhari became the leader of Nigeria in 2015, many Nigerians were hopeful and supportive of him. They thought he had a lot of goodwill to rely on and that the public mood was positive during his inauguration. Nigerians were tired of the previous leader, Goodluck Jonathan, who seemed indecisive during his time in office.

Buhari had been a military ruler before, and some Nigerians believed he was honest and trustworthy, which was rare for someone who had held public office in Nigeria before. His military background was seen as important because of the growing threat of the Boko Haram insurgency, which had become a serious problem under Jonathan's leadership. Some people thought Buhari's determination to run for president four times showed that he had something special to offer the country. In general, many Nigerians at the time had high hopes for Buhari and believed he could bring positive changes to Nigeria.

Buhari's journey from being a candidate with lots of excitement around him to becoming a source of deep disappointment was truly surprising. Many Nigerians  had high hopes for his government, but towards the end of his administration they just can't wait for him to step down. This is one of the most remarkable examples of a leader's reputation falling apart in the entire history of Nigerian politics.

Nigerians saw this problem early on, within the first few months of his administration. It was especially clear when he had a tough time assembling a capable cabinet. This showed that Buhari didn't plan well and wasn't ready for the challenges that come with being in power.

It is important to note that Buhari appeared unwilling to fully embrace the role of uniter, despite the clear need for political cohesion in the country at that time. During a speech at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in July 2015, Buhari indicated a preference for regions that had supported him in the elections, rather than treating all constituencies equally as required. He pointed out that the regions that gave him 97 percent of the votes deserved different treatment on certain matters compared to those that gave him only 5 percent, citing these differences as political realities. Notably, Buhari received the lowest percentage of votes in the Igbo-dominated southeast region.

An objective evaluation would likely lead to a conclusion of failure for the Buhari presidency. The economy, in particular, is in a significantly worse state than when he assumed office eight years ago. Nigeria had experienced a period of impressive growth between 2001 and 2014, with an average of 7 percent growth, making it one of the top 15 fastest-growing economies globally. However, the situation took a downturn in 2015 as oil prices declined, security conditions worsened, macroeconomic reforms were reversed, and economic policies became increasingly unpredictable. Consequently, real per capita income declined during this period, reaching levels not seen since the 1980s by the end of 2021.

Moreover, Buhari's fiscal management showed a lack of discipline, characterized by an insatiable appetite for borrowing, unparalleled in Nigeria's history. As evidence of this, with less than two weeks remaining in his tenure, Buhari sought approval from the Senate for an $800-million World Bank line of credit, further exacerbating the country's debt, which now stands at an astonishing 77 trillion Naira.

In a similar vein, the security situation took a troubling turn during Buhari's tenure, which is ironic considering the initial confidence people had in his military background, believing it would give him an advantage over his predecessor in this sector. Buhari himself didn't shy away from highlighting this perceived advantage during his campaign. However, since 2015, the state of public safety has worsened significantly, leading to the loss of at least 63,000 Nigerian lives due to various acts of both state and nonstate extrajudicial violence. The casualties have been inflicted by Islamist insurgents, armed bandits, and kidnappers, making these attacks the most deadly. Beyond the numbers, there's a prevailing sense of lawlessness, with an increasing reliance on vigilante justice as a sign of public frustration towards law enforcement and the judicial system.

Corruption has experienced a worsening trend as well. A Nigerian newspaper bemoaned the prevalence of cronyism and nepotism in Buhari's key appointments, leading to a detrimental fusion with government agencies working at odds, thus fostering corruption. Simultaneously, the excessive interference from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has seemingly obstructed the efforts of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the state's anti-graft agency. The state's pardoning of high-ranking public officials who were previously convicted of corruption has not only tarnished Buhari's reputation as a symbol of transparency but has also reinforced the perception among the public that his commitment to transparency is merely superficial rhetoric. This ironic outcome may have unwittingly validated Buhari's private apprehensions, as he once shared with a prominent US diplomat, about the enduring legacy of corruption in Nigeria surpassing even the legacy of colonialism.

Saying that Buhari is responsible for Nigeria's failures doesn't mean holding him solely accountable for all of the country's issues. He symbolizes the prevailing political culture, and in many ways, he simply worked with the circumstances he inherited. Nonetheless, it's essential to acknowledge that no single leader, even someone more intellectually gifted and administratively astute than Buhari, could have been expected to entirely resolve Nigeria's complex socioeconomic problems in just eight years. The challenges are deeply rooted and intricate.

Nigeria's economy heavily relies on a single sector, making it difficult to detach from its established foundations. Furthermore, no individual can be blamed entirely for the fluctuations in the global oil market, the reported theft of crude oil on a massive scale, or the frequent collapse of the national power grid (which happened 99 times during Buhari's presidency). These issues have a broader context beyond a single leader's control. However, it is valid to argue that Buhari could have done more with the resources at his disposal. Perhaps he will always regret not seizing the opportunity to transform society when he had the support of the public during the early days of his presidency.

Overall, Buhari's failure can be attributed to his lack of governing capabilities. Firstly, he never presented a coherent economic vision throughout his tenure. Despite being previously ousted for his perceived arrogance and self-proclaimed knowledge of problems and solutions, he rarely sought advice from the abundant technical and economic expertise available to him. Instead, he seemed trapped in an outdated command-and-control mindset of the 1970s, unable to adapt to the demands of the present era and unable to address this shortcoming. Interestingly, his ascent to the presidency might have fulfilled his primary objective: seeking redemption for what he saw as an unjust removal from power during his earlier stint as the head of a military junta. Consequently, his second coming to power appeared more motivated by personal vindication than a genuine commitment to public welfare.

Buhari's failure can also be attributed, in part, to his inability to establish an emotional connection with the Nigerian public. Unlike Jonathan, who appeared eager to please and engage with the people (Jonathan spent as much time on his knees as he did on his feet), Buhari's aloofness made him susceptible to accusations of insensitivity. His frequent expressions of longing to retire to his country home in Daura, Katsina State, may have come from a place of humility, but it only reinforced the perception that he was ill-equipped for the responsibilities of leadership and content to simply wait out his time in office. Not only that, Buhari's rise to power was largely facilitated by Bola Tinubu's political machinery, and this contributed to the belief that he was more of a sectional leader than a unifying national figure. He faced criticism for exacerbating the ethnoreligious divisions between Nigeria's Christian and Muslim communities.

Perhaps the most significant lesson from Buhari's presidency for Nigerians is that a leader perceived as personally incorruptible can preside over an administration plagued by corruption and incompetence. This insight raises questions about the upcoming Bola Tinubu government and whether a leader with a reputation for corruption can still oversee a relatively clean and competent administration.

In Comes Bola Tinubu - Can He Do it?

Tinubu's ambitions to establish a $1 trillion economy within eight years may encounter significant challenges, primarily due to the persistent power shortages in the country. The current national grid's production capacity of 4,500 megawatts leaves millions of Nigerians in darkness. Moreover, Nigeria's state authority relies heavily on control and subsidies to maintain low prices, appeasing vested interests but hindering progress.

Tinubu's initial policies have shown promise, such as the removal of fuel subsidies and allowing the country's currency, the naira, to float in the currency market. However, addressing the issue of insecurity will be equally complex. When Buhari assumed power in 2015, many hoped he would effectively tackle armed groups, but violence has since spread beyond the northeast. In an effort to address this, Tinubu has taken steps to replace security chiefs and the head of police. Yet, significant obstacles remain.

The military itself operates within an entrenched patronage system, making reforms challenging. Furthermore, some political analysts suggest that armed groups in the Nigeria Delta, involved in large-scale oil theft, receive support from certain politicians. Additionally, kidnapping rings in the northwest were originally formed as crime-fighting vigilante groups backed by state governments, adding further complexity to the security situation.

Tinubu will undoubtedly face critical judgment based on how effectively he addresses the networks of corruption and criminality plaguing Nigeria. Concerns have arisen about his commitment to tackling these issues, especially given his association with Buhari's ruling party and the extensive political, religious, and tribal networks that played a significant role in his election victory. Many fear that these deep-rooted connections might create a sense of indebtedness to the very entities that have contributed to the country's challenges.

To address the rampant oil theft in the Nigeria Delta, Tinubu has proposed the establishment of a surveillance unit dedicated to safeguarding oil pipelines. Additionally, he aims to create "anti-terrorist battalions" and special forces to combat jihadists and armed gangs responsible for the rising insecurity in the country. Furthermore, he intends to involve the military in community initiatives to "win hearts and minds," attempting to foster a sense of trust and cooperation.

However, skeptics question whether these plans will be sufficient to dismantle the well-established networks of corruption and criminality. Tinubu's suspension of the head of the financial and economic crimes agency (EFCC)  indicates some willingness to address corruption, but thus far, he has not presented a comprehensive anti-graft strategy. Moreover, the lack of a strong track record in fighting corruption raises doubts about his determination to enact transformative change in this area.

Part of the uncertainty surrounding Tinubu's approach to corruption stems from his history as a politician. His association with a powerful political machine, which played a crucial role in his election victory, raises concerns about potential entanglements and compromises. It remains to be seen whether Tinubu can maintain independence from these influential networks and focus solely on the interests of the Nigerian people.

Additionally, Tinubu's public statements on corruption have been lackluster, lacking the memorable and resolute stance needed to inspire confidence in his commitment to combatting the issue. Observers have noted that his body language does not convey a revolutionary determination to root out corruption.

As Nigerians and the international community wait to see how Tinubu's presidency unfolds, they hold hope that he will prioritize the fight against corruption and work diligently to eradicate criminal networks that have long hindered the nation's progress. The path he chooses to take will determine not only his legacy but also the fate of Nigeria's future. The nation awaits with bated breath, hoping for a leader who can rise above the challenges and lead the country towards a brighter and more prosperous tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

Dzirutwe, M. (2023, June 27). Analysis: Nigeria's Tinubu Faces Daunting Hurdles After Reform Sprint. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-tinubu-faces-daunting-hurdles-after-reform-sprint-2023-06-27/

Erumebor, W. (2023, February 6). Nigeria in 2023: Bridging the Productivity Gap and Building Economic Resilience. Retrieved from Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/nigeria-in-2023-bridging-the-productivity-gap-and-building-economic-resilience/

Orjinmo, N. (2023, May 21). Nigeria's Muhammadu Buhari Leaves Legacy of Kidnapping, Inflation and Debt. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65637553

Obadare, E. (2023, May 22). Why Buhari Failed. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-buhari-failed

The World Bank. (2022, February). Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022: A Better Future for All Nigerians: . Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099730003152232753/pdf/P17630107476630fa09c990da780535511c.pdf

 

United Front: Labor Movement Rises with Strikes

 

The significant surge in labor movement activity is akin to a brewing storm, with potential high-profile strikes on the horizon.

The labor movement in the United States is experiencing a significant surge in activity, with the potential for up to four high-profile strikes looming on the horizon. What distinguishes this moment from recent years is the unprecedented level of coordination among separate unions, signaling a united front in the fight for workers' rights and fair treatment.

At the forefront of this labor upheaval are UPS workers, who are gearing up for what could become the biggest strike the company has faced in six decades. UPS, a critical player in the country's shipping and logistics infrastructure, relies on its dedicated workforce to ensure the smooth flow of packages and goods nationwide. However, as workers rally for better wages, improved working conditions, and enhanced benefits, the possibility of a massive strike looms, disrupting operations and sending a powerful message to the employer.

Simultaneously, the auto industry is on edge as negotiations between auto workers and the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—are underway. The prospect of a strike hangs in the balance, as workers seek new contracts that safeguard their livelihoods, address concerns about job security, and secure a fair share of the industry's profits. An industry-wide strike could cripple production, impact sales, and bring national attention to the challenges faced by those who form the backbone of the automobile sector.

In plane terms, the recent surge in labor activism is not merely a series of isolated incidents; it signals a broader trend of increased worker dissatisfaction and demands for fair treatment and respect in the workplace. Workers across various industries are finding common cause and uniting under a shared belief that collective action is the most potent tool they have in advocating for their rights. While labor strikes are nothing new in the United States, the level of coordination among unions is what distinguishes this moment in labor history. In recent years, the labor movement faced challenges in rallying unified support across industries and companies. However, the current situation demonstrates a renewed commitment to solidarity and collaboration among different unions, enhancing the collective impact of their actions.

One of the driving factors behind this surge in labor activism is the widening income inequality and the diminishing power of the American worker. Many workers have become disillusioned with the traditional mechanisms of negotiation and compromise, leading them to turn to strikes as a means to exert greater pressure on employers and company executives. The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have also played a significant role in galvanizing worker discontent. Essential workers, who risked their health and safety to keep the economy afloat during the pandemic, have grown increasingly vocal about their demands for fair compensation and recognition of their sacrifices. Furthermore, the rise of social media and online organizing platforms has provided workers with unprecedented tools to connect, communicate, and mobilize. This digital landscape has accelerated the spread of information and facilitated the formation of transnational networks of workers, enabling them to share strategies and amplify their voices collectively.

As the labor movement gains momentum and workers across various sectors assert their demands, employers and policymakers face mounting pressure to address the root causes of these labor pains. Whether it is income inequality, inadequate working conditions, or job security concerns, the collective voice of workers is calling for change, and its echoes are growing louder with each passing strike.

 

Pass the Salt, Please

It is worth pointing out that the very tight labor markets have increased workers' bargaining power too. As the demand for labor outstrips the supply of available workers, companies are facing a fierce competition to attract and retain talent. In such an environment, workers find themselves in a more favorable position to negotiate for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Thus the tightening labor market has undoubtedly contributed to the surge in labor activism and strikes too, as employees recognize their increased leverage and seek to make the most of this opportune moment.

In addition to the economic factors at play, the changing societal attitudes toward work and workers' rights have also played a role in fueling the current labor movement. Increasingly, people are questioning the prevailing norms of the workplace, advocating for better work-life balance, and pushing for fair treatment and representation in decision-making processes. The younger generations, in particular, are more likely to be vocal about their expectations for ethical business practices and social responsibility from employers. Moreover, the recent shifts in political dynamics have influenced the labor landscape. As worker-friendly policies gain traction in some parts of the country, the labor movement sees an opportunity to push for broader changes at both the state and federal levels. Advocacy for a higher minimum wage, stronger labor protections, and better enforcement of existing labor laws has become a rallying point for workers across industries.

The revitalization of the labor movement is also closely intertwined with broader discussions about wealth distribution and income inequality. With concerns about the concentration of wealth and the challenges faced by the working class, more Americans are embracing the idea that workers must unite to demand a fair share of the economic prosperity they help create. The increased coordination among separate unions is equally a manifestation of these changing dynamics. By banding together, workers from different sectors and industries can harness their collective strength, ensuring that their voices are not only heard but also amplified. This united front challenges the longstanding perception that unions have been on a steady decline, showcasing the enduring power of organized labor when driven by shared goals.

However, it is crucial to recognize that not everyone views this resurgence in labor activism with the same enthusiasm. Some businesses, concerned about the potential disruptions and increased labor costs, may resist the workers' demands, leading to protracted negotiations or even confrontations. Critics of the labor movement might argue that excessive demands could harm economic growth or jeopardize the financial viability of some companies, potentially leading to job losses.

The outcome of these labor disputes and negotiations remains uncertain, and the path forward is likely to be fraught with challenges and compromises. The delicate balance between meeting workers' demands and maintaining economic stability will require careful consideration and thoughtful engagement from all stakeholders involved.

As the labor movement continues to evolve, it serves as a reflection of broader societal and economic trends. It underscores the importance of ensuring that workers' rights are protected and that the benefits of economic prosperity are shared more equitably. The current moment of heightened labor activism presents an opportunity to address long-standing issues and shape a more inclusive and sustainable economy that prioritizes the well-being and dignity of its workforce.

Both practical and logical reasoning suggests that the U.S. Workers will want higher wages even as inflation subsides because they will want to make up for the higher prices of the past few years. As the economy recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are signs of inflationary pressures easing, but the lingering effects of rising prices have left many workers feeling the strain on their purchasing power. Even as inflation rates stabilize, the memory of the cost of living increases endured during the pandemic will likely motivate workers to seek higher wages to offset the financial challenges they faced.

Throughout the pandemic, inflation in U.S. soared, driven by various factors such as disrupted supply chains, increased demand for certain goods and services, and fiscal stimulus measures. The rising costs of everyday essentials, such as housing, food, and fuel, put a squeeze on household budgets, leaving workers struggling to make ends meet. While inflation rates may have begun to subside, the financial burden carried by workers during these inflationary times has left a lasting impact.

During periods of high inflation, wages often struggle to keep up with the rising costs of living. As a result, workers' purchasing power declines, and their standard of living may erode. When inflation subsides, it does not necessarily mean workers' financial worries disappear entirely. The memories of the financial hardships endured during inflationary periods can linger, prompting workers to be more assertive in seeking better compensation and benefits.

For many workers, higher wages are not just about keeping up with inflation; it is also about addressing longstanding issues of wage stagnation and income inequality. Even before the pandemic, wage growth for the average worker had been relatively sluggish for several decades, while productivity and corporate profits surged. Workers feel that they deserve a fair share of the economic gains they help generate for their employers and the broader economy. Not only that, as the labor movement gains momentum and unions find a renewed sense of solidarity, the push for higher wages becomes part of a larger advocacy for workers' rights and social justice. Beyond inflation adjustments, workers are calling for a living wage that enables them to meet their basic needs and achieve financial stability. The demand for better compensation extends to essential workers who have been on the front lines during the pandemic, facing health risks and shouldering significant responsibilities while often earning low wages.

On their Own Terms

The Federal Reserve plays a crucial role in managing economic stability and is likely to closely monitor labor market developments. The central bank has the mandate to foster full employment and price stability, and any significant disruptions in the labor market could influence their policy decisions. The Fed may adjust interest rates and implement other monetary policy tools to respond to changing economic conditions.

Another important factor to consider is the potential for labor actions to be localized rather than widespread across all industries and regions. The impact of labor disputes and strikes may vary, with some sectors experiencing more significant disruptions than others. Consequently, the overall effect on the national economy could be less severe than in a scenario where widespread strikes occur simultaneously. In addition, the future trajectory of inflation remains uncertain. While inflationary pressures have eased to some extent, the lingering effects of the pandemic, supply chain bottlenecks, and shifts in consumer behavior could continue to influence price dynamics. A surge in inflation could further complicate the wage negotiation landscape, as workers and employers grapple with adjusting compensation in an inflationary environment.

Looking ahead, the state of the labor market will be intertwined with broader economic trends and policy decisions. As businesses navigate the challenges posed by labor activism, they may explore alternative strategies to retain and attract talent, such as investing in employee training and development, offering more competitive benefits packages, and enhancing workplace culture.

Policymakers will need to strike a balance between supporting workers' rights and ensuring a stable economic environment. Discussions on minimum wage legislation, labor protections, and economic recovery plans will continue to shape the policy landscape. Finding common ground between workers, employers, and policymakers will be essential to fostering a sustainable and inclusive economic recovery.

The bottom line is this: while labor disputes and disruptions can influence business operations and consumer confidence, the broader economic context and policy responses will play a pivotal role in determining the trajectory of the U.S. economy. Striking the delicate balance between addressing workers' demands and maintaining economic stability will require ongoing collaboration and dialogue among stakeholders to navigate the complexities of the labor market and foster a resilient and prosperous future.

 

 

 

References

 

Garver, R. (2023, July 20). Major Strikes Loom in US Labor Market . Retrieved from VOA: https://www.voanews.com/a/major-strikes-loom-in-us-labor-market-/7189659.html

Ivanova, I. (2023, July 21). UPS Workers Poised for Biggest U.S. Strike in 60 Years. Here's What to Know. Retrieved from CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ups-strike-2023-teamsters-what-to-know/

Lichtenstein, N. (2002). State of the Union: A Century of American Labor . New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Memoli, M. (2023, July 20). How Biden Plans to Handle a Series of Possible Labor Strikes Across the Country. Retrieved from NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-plans-handle-series-possible-labor-strikes-nation-rcna95432

 

 

 

 

From Great Wall to Great Fall? China's Economic Woes

Restaurants have been riding a wave of prosperity since China's COVID-19 controls were lifted, while the gods of wealth have turned a blind eye to the rest of the economy. GDP figures on July 17, 2023, unmasked the harsh reality that the country's economic fortunes were not as bountiful as the thriving restaurant trade would suggest.

Janet Yellen's visit to Beijing may have provided a boost to the local restaurant trade with her team dining at a popular establishment known for Yunnanese dishes. The restaurant even honored her with a specially curated "God of Wealth" menu, highlighting her influential position as the U.S. Treasury Secretary. During her stay, Yellen also took the opportunity to engage with female entrepreneurs and economists, hosting a lunch with them. Such interactions and engagements between high-level officials from different nations can foster economic cooperation and provide opportunities for collaboration between countries. However, despite the success observed in the restaurant industry since China dropped its COVID-19 controls in 2022, the overall economic landscape of the country has faced challenges. The GDP figures released on July 17, 2023, revealed signs of economic trouble in China.

China’s GDP figures showed that the country’s economy experienced a 6.3% growth in the second quarter of the current year compared to the same period in the previous year. While this growth rate may seem impressive, it fell short of expectations. It's important to note that this figure was partly influenced by a low base in 2022, which occurred due to lockdowns in major cities like Shanghai last year. When compared to the first quarter of the current year, the growth rate was only 0.8%, which translates to an annualized rate of merely 3.2%. This suggests that the economy's pace of expansion slowed down considerably between the first and second quarters of the year.

It is crucial to consider both the year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter growth rates to gain a comprehensive understanding of the economic performance, as different factors and events can influence these figures. The slowdown in growth between the two quarters could be an important trend to monitor to assess the overall health and trajectory of the Chinese economy.

Obstacles to growth were both foreign and domestic. The dollar value of China's exports, for example, experienced a significant decline of more than 12% in June compared with the same month a year earlier. This drop marked the sharpest decrease since the height of the pandemic in February 2020. This decline in exports can be attributed to the sluggish recovery of the world economy, affecting global demand for Chinese goods.

Furthermore, the recovery of China's property market faced challenges as well. Sales of flats plummeted by 27% in June compared to the previous year. This drop indicates a slowdown in the property market, and current sales levels are now significantly below what economists believe would be justified by the underlying demand, considering China's urbanization trends and the widespread desire for better accommodation.

These economic indicators collectively point to a more complex and challenging economic landscape for China. While the country experienced some growth in the second quarter, it fell short of expectations, and various factors both at home and abroad may continue to influence its economic trajectory moving forward.

The weaker-than-expected economic growth in China is further highlighted by its "nominal" growth, which refers to growth figures before adjusting for inflation. Surprisingly, the nominal growth was even weaker than the inflation-adjusted figure, and this has occurred only four times in the past 40 quarters. This suggests that the price of Chinese goods and services is experiencing a decline. In fact, calculations indicate that they fell by 1.4% in the year leading up to the second quarter. Such a significant drop would mark the sharpest decline since the global financial crisis.

This situation of falling prices may raise concerns as it could potentially lead to deflationary pressures in the economy. Deflation can have adverse effects on consumption and investment behavior, as consumers and businesses may delay purchases in anticipation of even lower prices in the future, impacting overall economic activity.

The combination of slower growth, declining exports, and a softening property market, along with the potential risks of deflation, poses challenges for China's economic prospects. Policymakers will likely need to carefully monitor and implement measures to support sustainable growth and address the underlying issues impacting the Chinese economy.

Consumer prices remaining stagnant in June compared to the previous year and producer prices falling by 5.4% at the factory gate have raised concerns about deflationary pressures in the Chinese economy. China's statisticians have attributed this weakness to changes in global commodity prices, particularly the falling cost of oil. However, this explanation has been deemed unconvincing, as GDP calculations are supposed to consider only the value added within China itself, excluding the impact of imported commodities.

The persistence of low or negative inflation could indicate broader deflationary trends, which can pose significant challenges to an economy. Deflation can lead to reduced consumer spending, postponed investments, and increased debt burdens for borrowers, potentially hindering economic growth and recovery. Alternatively, there is a possibility that China's statisticians may have made errors in their calculations, which could be skewing the reported growth figures. The accuracy and integrity of economic data are vital for policymakers to make informed decisions and implement appropriate measures to address economic challenges effectively.

Some members of the public express skepticism regarding the accuracy of China's official economic figures, suspecting that the actual state of the economy might be worse than what the data suggests. This discrepancy between the macroeconomic data and the public's "micro feelings" about the economy has been referred to as a "temperature difference," as described by one commentator.

In response to these concerns, Mr. Fu of the National Bureau of Statistics defended the reliability of the macroeconomic data, emphasizing that it is more comprehensive and trustworthy than individual "micro feelings." However, this response has sparked humor among netizens, with one quipping that if state statisticians claim everything is fine, individuals should adjust their feelings accordingly.

The disconnect between official data and public perceptions raises questions about transparency and the accuracy of economic reporting in China. Public trust in official figures is essential for effective policymaking and for maintaining stability in the economy.

To address this situation and ensure confidence in economic data, it is crucial for China's statistical authorities to continue improving their methodologies and practices, be transparent about data sources and calculations, and address any discrepancies or doubts raised by the public. Open communication and a commitment to accuracy and integrity are vital for building and maintaining public trust in the country's economic reporting.

Economic Uncertainties

The government's approach to addressing the current economic challenges in China appears to be cautious and measured, leaving some observers uncertain about its intentions. In the midst of the global financial crisis, when world trade plummeted, Chinese authorities responded swiftly with substantial stimulus measures that fueled economic growth not only domestically but also had positive effects on the global economy. However, the current situation seems different, as the government has not shown the same level of urgency in implementing large-scale stimulus measures.

The actions taken so far include minor interest rate cuts by the country's central bank and extensions of tax breaks on electric vehicle purchases. While these measures indicate a level of response to the economic situation, they fall short of the detailed fiscal stimulus plan that some had hoped for after the recent meeting of China's cabinet, the State Council, on Friday, the 14th.

The government's cautious approach might be influenced by various factors, including concerns about debt levels and financial risks, as well as a desire to avoid the potential negative consequences of excessive stimulus. Policymakers may also be carefully assessing the overall economic situation and considering alternative measures to support growth effectively. In such a complex economic landscape, finding the right balance between stimulating economic activity and managing potential risks becomes a delicate task.

This lack of urgency in implementing large-scale stimulus measures may be indicative of the government's enduring confidence in the ongoing economic recovery. Chinese officials could believe that the economy has sufficient momentum to achieve their targeted goals for the year, including maintaining GDP growth at around 5%. The government's restraint in deploying extensive stimulus measures may also stem from concerns about potential drawbacks associated with such actions. Policymakers may be cautious about the impact of excessive lending and spending on state-owned banks' profitability and financial discipline among local governments. A lending spree could increase non-performing loans and debt burdens, leading to financial instability in the long run.

Balancing short-term economic support with long-term financial sustainability and stability is likely a key consideration for Chinese authorities. Instead of resorting to large-scale stimulus, they might opt for more targeted and prudent measures to address specific areas of concern, ensuring that economic growth remains on a sustainable and steady trajectory.

Nonetheless, the situation remains fluid, and the government may reassess its approach depending on how the economic landscape evolves. External factors, such as changes in global economic conditions, trade dynamics, and geopolitical tensions, could also influence China's policymaking decisions in the future.

It is worth pointing out that China's economic reopening has seen a significant boost in labor-intensive service industries, particularly in sectors like restaurants, driving job creation in urban areas. During the first six months of the year, Chinese cities managed to add 6.8 million jobs, surpassing half of the government's annual target of 12 million new jobs. This robust job growth has been instrumental in absorbing some of the employment challenges resulting from the pandemic's impact on various industries.

Despite the positive employment trend, there remain specific concerns, particularly among urban youth. The unemployment rate among this demographic increased to 21.3%, indicating the need for targeted measures to address their specific employment needs and ensure their participation in the economic recovery. Overall, the country's jobless rate, which stood at 5.2% in June, has remained relatively steady and is below the government's targeted rate of 5.5%. This suggests that the economy's reopening efforts, particularly in the services sector, have been successful in generating employment opportunities and mitigating the adverse effects of the pandemic on the labor market.

But the labor market's current stability should be regarded with caution, as it can act as a lagging indicator of economic momentum. If the economic growth remains weak or encounters obstacles, unemployment rates could eventually start to rise. In such a scenario, the government may find itself compelled to take further actions to stimulate the economy and counteract negative trends.

While officials can tolerate some discrepancy between official economic data and public sentiment, they would be unwilling to overlook a substantial and persistent gap between the economy's actual performance and their predetermined targets. If the economy shows signs of falling short of the government's growth objectives or if unemployment rates begin to rise significantly, policymakers may need to reassess their approach and consider implementing more substantial stimulus measures to safeguard economic stability.

The situation calls for a careful balancing act between managing short-term challenges and adhering to long-term economic and financial objectives. Policymakers will likely continue to monitor various economic indicators closely, assess the effectiveness of the measures implemented so far, and be prepared to adapt their strategies if needed.

Ultimately, the success of China's economic recovery will depend on the government's ability to respond flexibly to evolving circumstances, ensure adequate support for the labor market and businesses, and maintain a steady course towards achieving their economic targets while addressing any emerging challenges along the way.

 

 

Notes

Hannam, P. (2023, July 16). China GDP Growth Falls Short of Expectations as Sinking Property Prices Hit Economy. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/17/china-gdp-growth-down-economy-june-quarter-gross-domestic-profit

He, L. (2023, July 17). More Stimulus ‘Desperately’ Needed as China’s Economic Recovery Slows Further. Retrieved from CNN Business: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/16/economy/china-economy-q2-gdp-intl-hnk/index.html

The Economist. (2023, July 17). A Feel-Bad Recovery: How Much Trouble is China’s Economy In? Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/07/17/how-much-trouble-is-chinas-economy-in

 

 

Hollywood Goes Dark: Writers and Actors Strike Back

 

With pens down and picket signs up, actors and writers bring Hollywood to a standstill. Simply put, the strikes in Hollywood shine a spotlight on the seismic shakeup caused by the surge of streaming platforms, jolting the foundations of traditional compensation and viewership models. This disruptive tremor has sparked labor strikes and ignited fears for the fate of actors and writers, casting a shadow over the industry's future.

 

On July 14th, 2023, a significant event unfolded in the entertainment industry as the 160,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), collectively known as SAG-AFTRA, initiated a historic strike. This labor action had a profound impact on the world of film, television, and radio.

To understand the context leading up to this strike, it is essential to delve into the history of SAG-AFTRA. The Screen Actors Guild was established in 1933 as a labor union representing professional actors in the United States. Its primary goal was to protect the rights and interests of performers, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and equitable treatment in the entertainment industry. AFTRA, on the other hand, originated in 1937 as a union for radio performers, expanding its jurisdiction to include television and other media over time.

Over the years, SAG and AFTRA collaborated on various issues, recognizing their shared goals and the benefits of collective bargaining. In 2012, after years of negotiations, SAG and AFTRA merged to form SAG-AFTRA, creating a stronger and more unified voice for performers across different media platforms.

A Netflix Strike?

A was noted above, the union represents different performers like actors, journalists, and voiceover artists. Their contract with the studios expired, but they extended negotiations. Unfortunately, they didn't reach an agreement. On the first day of the strike, performers gathered on picket lines in Los Angeles and New York. Cars honked to support them, even near Netflix's offices. Many picketers carried signs for SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America (WGA), who had their own strike earlier. This is the first time both unions are striking together since 1960. One sign even mentioned Blockbuster, a video-rental store that doesn't exist anymore.

The strikes happened because streaming changed TV and movies a lot. The writers' strike is sometimes called the "Netflix strike." Actors and writers say they can't make enough money from residuals, which they get when their work is shown again. They also have problems because streaming services keep viewer numbers secret. This makes it hard to know why shows are canceled or if they become popular. Artists think they should be paid more for their successful work. The strike is a way for working actors to stand up because they're afraid they might lose their jobs.

Actors are also worried about artificial intelligence (AI) taking their place. Some signs even talked about that. The union says the studios offered to pay actors for scanning their image and likeness for one day, but the studios could use it forever. Fran Drescher, the star of a TV show called "The Nanny" and the president of SAG-AFTRA, talked about this at a press conference. She was really angry and said if they don't take action now, they could all be replaced by machines.Top of Form

How will the strike affect Hollywood? Well, it's going to be a big problem. TV shows and movies won't be made anymore. Actors can't promote their work at events like film festivals and premieres. Even talk shows won't have them as guests. The Emmys, a famous award show, won't be as exciting if the strike continues until September. Cities that rely on film and TV production will also be affected. When writers went on strike before, California lost a lot of money. The current strike is costing the state millions of dollars every day. But Los Angeles is a strong city with a diverse economy. In fact, the film industry employs a lot of people there. Even though they're important, they make up less than 2% of the city's workforce.

Union membership in the country is very low. Only 10.1% of Americans are part of a union. But the strikes in Hollywood are happening at a time when workers are unhappy in California and other places too. In the past year, school employees and hotel workers in Los Angeles went on strike. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted many work stoppages in 2022, which means a lot of workers didn't go to work. If UPS workers go on strike as they are threatening to, it could be a really expensive strike.

President Joe Biden supports labor unions a lot. He wants more people to join them. When screenwriters went on strike, other unions supported them. For example, the trucking union called the Teamsters refused to deliver things to the studios because they didn't want to cross the picket lines.

At a Netflix location, picketers were still talking about what happened that morning. Ms. Drescher, who is a famous actor and the president of the union, came to talk to them. She's good at standing up for what's right, just like her character on the TV show "The Nanny." Her character once said, "never, ever, ever cross a picket line."

One thing is for certain: The strike is like a storm hitting Hollywood, leaving TV shows and movies in its wake.  If the strike continues, Hollywood will be a ghost town, with no red carpets or shining stars.

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Barnes, B. (2023, July 15). In Hollywood, the Strikes Are Just Part of the Problem. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/15/business/media/hollywood-strikes.html

Cruz, G. (2008, December 18). A Brief History of the Screen Actors Guild. Retrieved from Time Magazine: https://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1867172,00.html

Provost, R. (2021, December 26). What is SAG-AFTRA — Guild History, Eligibility & Membership. Retrieved from https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-sag-aftra-definition/

Pulver , A., & Shoard, C. (2023, July 14). The Hollywood Actors’ Strike: Everything You Need to Know. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/14/the-hollywood-actors-strike-everything-you-need-to-know

The Economist. (2023, July 14). Cut! An All-Out Strike Brings Hollywood to a Halt. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/07/14/an-all-out-strike-brings-hollywood-to-a-halt

 

Hard Work Triumphs: Supreme Court Embraces Merit

 

 

June 29, 2023 should really be a good day for the minorities in America because the Supreme Court has finally recognized that we are smart people. They have confirmed that we can get accepted into the fancy Ivy League schools by working really hard and being really smart, and not by relying on the “academic crutches” called affirmative action.

I want to make it clear that I am a black man, which means I belong to what Americans call a "minority group." I don't like affirmative action, which is when the government or organizations try to include certain groups like women, different races, people with certain beliefs, or people from different countries in places where they are not represented enough, like in schools or jobs. People who support affirmative action say it's meant to stop unfair discrimination, fix the effects of past discrimination, and prevent future discrimination. Nonsense: if affirmative action is meant to make up for past discrimination or disadvantages, it should only help people who have been discriminated against. However, current affirmative action programs give advantages to certain groups, even if an individual in that group hasn't personally faced discrimination. Also, most of the people who were victims of past discrimination are no longer alive, so it doesn't make sense to try to make it fair for them now.

Without putting it in so many words, when colleges or other organizations (including government agencies) give out social benefits like educational opportunities or jobs, everyone should be treated the same unless there is a good reason to treat them differently. When deciding who should get a job or go to college, the affected colleges or organizations should look at a person's qualifications and abilities, not their race or gender. It is just as unfair to give or deny benefits based on race or gender as it is to discriminate like in the past. Also, the way current affirmative action programs are set up, they unfairly ignore the needs of some people  who are in a tough situation simply because they are not in the minority group, while, at the same time, giving lots of benefits to minorities who may not really need them. It is important to know that even rich people also cry sometimes. We should understand and accept that truth.

It is not an exaggeration to say that affirmative action programs do more harm than good. First, these programs can overlook people who may be more qualified for a job or college, and instead choose people who are only a little qualified. This makes the workplace less productive and efficient and lowers the standards in schools.

Second, these programs can make minorities feel like they got accepted into college or hired for a job just because they belong to a minority group, not because they are the best for the position. This can make them feel stigmatized and like their achievements are not valued. They might even start doubting themselves and feeling inferior. Third, these programs can make people depend on them and not encourage them to become self-reliant or develop the skills they need to succeed in school or work. Fourth, when qualified non-minorities are passed over for positions that go to less-qualified minorities, it can create resentment and tension between different groups.

In my opinion, our society's burdens should be shared fairly by everyone. These preferential treatment programs, like affirmative action programs, are unfair because they put the burden on non-minorities who are looking for jobs or higher education. These individuals are not directly responsible for past injustices or fixing present inequalities more than anyone else. It is not fair that they should have to bear the full burden. They shouldn't be punished for things their ancestors did.

History and economics both shows that even though affirmative action programs  may seem helpful, it actually causes problems. When we give special treatment to women and minorities, it doesn't always help the people who have suffered the most from discrimination and deserve compensation the most. Often, those who are most disadvantaged don't have the qualifications and skills needed to get jobs or go to college. Reports show that there is a growing difference between poor black people with little education and job skills, and wealthy black people who have more opportunities. It is also not clear if even the minorities and women who qualify for the affirmative action programs really benefit from it. Recent studies show that many minority college students who were admitted through affirmative action programs end up dropping out. When these individuals are given opportunities they are not ready for, it can make them feel inferior.

A Victory for Merit

As was noted above, the Supreme Court made a decision that ended affirmative action in college admissions on June 29, 2023. In my view, this ruling is a big win for the idea that people should be chosen based on their abilities, not their identity. But the fight against racial preferences is still going on. Our top universities don't really care about having true diversity. They want everyone to think the same way and have an appearance of equal outcomes, even if it is not really fair. Regardless of the recent court cases, it is clear that most Americans don't support racial preferences.

Whenever affirmative action is put up for a vote, people usually vote against it by a large majority. It doesn't matter if they live in a Republican or Democratic state. Most Americans believe that our laws and institutions should treat everyone equally, without considering their race. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 82% of Americans think that college admissions should not take race into account. That is almost everyone! But the Left and the institutions they control still want to push this idea on us. The situation in California is a good example of this.

Back in 1996, California voters passed a law called Proposition 209. It said that public institutions couldn't use race, sex, or ethnicity when making decisions about jobs, contracts, or academic admissions. This law was popular in the state, and it seems that black and minority students who got into California schools actually did better after the law was in place. Then, in 2020, some left-wing activists tried to bring affirmative action back in California. They failed by an even bigger margin than before. Almost everyone, no matter where they lived or what background they had, didn't want it. People who support racial preferences made excuses for why it failed, but it is hard to believe those excuses when the measure was defeated by such a large amount.

The people supporting Prop 16 had a lot of advantages. They spent way more money than their opponents, almost 20 times as much. They had a lot of nonprofit organizations and big companies supporting them. The universities were also on their side. They tried to pass it in 2020 when there were protests about racism, like the Black Lives Matter riots and the "defund the police" movement. At that time, California was very liberal and had more people from different races than ever before.

But even with all these advantages, they couldn't convince people to support a system based on race. People in California and all over America didn't want it. The elites in charge of institutions, though, they kept pushing for it. They just wouldn't give up. The New York Times even said that not having racial preferences was a crisis for the Left. According to the newspaper, the Democratic Party strongly believed in bringing back affirmative action based on race, but the big defeat in California showed that regular people in the party didn't agree. The New York Times suggested that if the Supreme Court made another ruling against racial preferences, which they just did, it could make the Democratic Party change its agenda.

I'm not so sure about that. They might be less likely to bring race-based policies to a vote because they know it won't win. Instead, they will use their power in institutions and bureaucracy to get the results they want. Sadly, many schools in California and other places have found ways to get around the ban on racial preferences. They lower their standards to make sure they have the mix of races they want. This has been a problem at Harvard and other elite schools that were sued. The evidence shows that Harvard tries to have a certain balance of races among its students. It also shows that black and Hispanic students get admitted at higher rates than white and Asian students with the same grades and qualifications.

Will colleges and universities accept the Supreme Court's recent ruling and move forward? Not a chance. If they can't use race in admissions, some schools with more resources will find other ways to promote diversity. They might look at household incomes, ZIP codes, or use special programs to recruit certain students. Their goal will still be to have a certain number of students from different races, even if the Supreme Court says they can't.

Higher education is where the belief in racial preferences is strongest and unquestioned. That is where the power of this movement lies. Universities will keep teaching students, who will become future leaders, that we should focus on race and make sure everyone has the same outcome regardless of their abilities. The institutions will fight against any changes, and the media will support them. It is up to Americans and elected officials to put pressure on them to stop. That might mean taking away funding from diversity and inclusion programs. It might mean making it easier to remove staff and faculty who push a highly racialized way of thinking instead of encouraging real learning and independent thought. Those who disagree with race preferences need to be proactive in fighting against these harmful ideas.

The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to racial preferences, but we can expect the institutions to fight back. The end of racial preferences in college admissions won't be the end of this battle. It is the people versus the institutions, just like in many other issues today. Let us support the people and help them win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Ax, J. (2023, June 29). What the Supreme Court's Ruling on Affirmative Action Means for Colleges. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-supreme-courts-ruling-affirmative-action-means-colleges-2023-06-29/

Keenan, A. (2023, June 29). Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action 'Must End' in College Admissions. Retrieved from Yahoo! Finance: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-rules-affirmative-action-must-end-in-college-admissions-145400431.html

Pew Research Center. (2023, June 8). Asian Americans Hold Mixed Views Around Affirmative Action. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/06/08/asian-americans-hold-mixed-views-around-affirmative-action/re_2023-06-08_asian-americans-affirmative-action_0-05/

Powell , M., & Marcus, I. (2023, June 11). The Failed Affirmative Action Campaign That Shook Democrats. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html

Slattery, E. (2015, December 2). How Affirmative Action at Colleges Hurts Minority Students. Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students

Stepman, J. (2023, June 28). On Racial Preferences, It’s Institutional Elites vs. the People. Retrieved from The Daily Signal: https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/racial-preferences-its-institutional-elites-vs-the-people