Not really. Religion and race are protected classes. The analogue would be a police force in the South refusing to provide names of officers with a track record of racial discrimination complaints.
Whether this is authoritarian depends on what comes next.
>Not really. Religion and race are protected classes.
Which conveniently, isn't what the Supreme Court seems to actually believe given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds. So I think it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep.
> given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds
Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
> it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep
Yes, if the executive acts as an authoritarian and the courts sign off on it, it will be authoritarian.
> Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
They're the same thing. Multiple lawyers have argued it's the same thing. The supreme court itself in their explanation has argued that it's OK to racially discriminate against some people. The dissent explicitly calls this as taking away constitutional rights.
The same institution that pretends to have "such a strong protest culture".
The suppression of free speech is quite funny to see, from those who claim to be such proponents of it. Of course, it's not free speech when it bothers my political sensibilities, it's only free speech when I'm the one being censored, not when I do the censoring.
The alternative seems to be that the Trump admin directs the State Dept to revoke all student visas from UC Berkeley, and they lose half their student body (and a good number of faculty) overnight.
Which is, of course, flat out unacceptable on many levels.
However; it seems to me some of these institutions could band together and pool resources both legal, financial, and otherwise to give something of a stronger defense than one alone.
Rock and a hard place certainly.
But there has to be something that can be done, albeit even in the United States broken systems of law, both constitutional and otherwise, to fight off this assault. Anything other than bending the knee and enabling further assaults on higher-education and/or the US democracy.
It could be done, but I guess many these institutions think it's futile, especially given Supreme Court's recent stances. Harvard stands out and have secured a temporary win, but who knows what happens in 3 months. I am not optimistic.
I stopped believing in constitution for a while now. If the interpretation of it depends on who sits on the bench, it means it's nothing more than a piece of paper with some words on it.
https://archive.ph/QasXD
isn’t it intolerable to be controlled by that awful, murderous, black hole of country? How do you put up with this?
It would seem that Berkeley didn't come up with these names on their own, they were a part of complaints that the government demanded info on?
[flagged]
> doesn't this smell like fascism?
Not really. Religion and race are protected classes. The analogue would be a police force in the South refusing to provide names of officers with a track record of racial discrimination complaints.
Whether this is authoritarian depends on what comes next.
>Not really. Religion and race are protected classes.
Which conveniently, isn't what the Supreme Court seems to actually believe given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds. So I think it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep.
> given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds
Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
> it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep
Yes, if the executive acts as an authoritarian and the courts sign off on it, it will be authoritarian.
> Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
They're the same thing. Multiple lawyers have argued it's the same thing. The supreme court itself in their explanation has argued that it's OK to racially discriminate against some people. The dissent explicitly calls this as taking away constitutional rights.
Sort of OT, but.
Orwell would say, that depends:
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
(He also gave names of leftists to government when they asked)
Eco’s take is perhaps more useful as a guide to identify.
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
Eco grew up in and around the Fascist whiplash(es) -- it makes sense that he knows it like his backyard!
I think it does matter how this came about.
The same institution that pretends to have "such a strong protest culture".
The suppression of free speech is quite funny to see, from those who claim to be such proponents of it. Of course, it's not free speech when it bothers my political sensibilities, it's only free speech when I'm the one being censored, not when I do the censoring.
Sad to see such a great and distinguished institution 'bend the knee' to the Pumpkin Spice Palpatine in this manner.
UC Berkeley used to have such fight in it.
They started dying quite some time ago, at least as early as when they hired John Yoo.
The alternative seems to be that the Trump admin directs the State Dept to revoke all student visas from UC Berkeley, and they lose half their student body (and a good number of faculty) overnight.
Which is, of course, flat out unacceptable on many levels.
However; it seems to me some of these institutions could band together and pool resources both legal, financial, and otherwise to give something of a stronger defense than one alone.
Rock and a hard place certainly.
But there has to be something that can be done, albeit even in the United States broken systems of law, both constitutional and otherwise, to fight off this assault. Anything other than bending the knee and enabling further assaults on higher-education and/or the US democracy.
It could be done, but I guess many these institutions think it's futile, especially given Supreme Court's recent stances. Harvard stands out and have secured a temporary win, but who knows what happens in 3 months. I am not optimistic.
I stopped believing in constitution for a while now. If the interpretation of it depends on who sits on the bench, it means it's nothing more than a piece of paper with some words on it.
What, you think they’re going to stop here? They’re going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing — then revoke the visas anyway out of spite.
Don’t give an inch and litigate. That is the only path forward.
In other words: fascism will never be appeased.