In January, Tyler Cowen posted a post entitled “Congratulations to Christopher Rufo and Richard Hanania.” This was related to their role in fighting Day’s policy.
As most of you already know, the Trump administration under executive order has taken significant steps against positive actions and DEI. Details arise, but each of these developments is not only “expressive” but also extremely important.
These two individuals played a critical role in both cases taking Flak along the way.
I had the exact same view as Tyler. But at least in one respect, “details” did not unfold in the way many of us prefer. This is Richard Hanania:
I’m at the Economist today about issues in Trump’s Harvard War. From my perspective at least, the overall point of the movement of rebellion was to fight for merit, freedom, and the rule of law. If you honestly hold the Inkes principle, you have to act, you have to admit that Trump is trying to replace Day with a lower class who is more opposed. . . .
I’m not making any real defenses about what Trump is doing. This is Rufo, who opposes the central right critics of the administration, but the policies he defends do not reset to one of the ultimates pursued. There are no 11 people on Trump’s requirements for ideological diversity or on Harvard’s request to create an ideological litmus test for international students. If Chris also thought the police had a logical and legal basis, I think he was like in their case. He may believe that he has a bad heart and needs to support a policy that conflicts with it, but I think that attitude is how you are supposed to protect the inviolable.
There are two types of people on issues like freedom of speech. The view is that people who depend on the ideology of the speaker and whether they are aging or not, and have principled support for freedom. In the former case, so-called free speech supporters may immediately reverse the opposite, as they gain power. The sub on the right opposes diversity shows that put racial and gender considerations above merit, but a new desire to put ideological diversity considerations above merit. Those who complained about the cancellation culture want to deport students who protest Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In a related note, a recent post by Matt Lutz on civil rights caught my attention:
So let’s talk about civil rights law.
I know, I know! I feel you reach for your pearls again, ready to clutch. So let’s start by saying I’m not opposed to civil rights laws. I think that was a good thing. But like so many other things in politics, there is a good argument on the part of Aisher. And I think there is a good argument that should be made against civil rights. That’s good online. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing bad about it. And the bad part is basically the arguments that libertarians have long been opposed to civil rights law. . .
The world is complex and should not be completely committed to a particular perspective. The Trump administration’s handling of Harvard University is bad. But Jim Crow got worse. Speaking of civil correct conduct, if that is what it was given to Donald. [expletive] The best thing that can be said to play the power around liberal Instad is to edit Jim Crow. Jim Crow is that bad.
However, the Libertarians had a point. I think it’s easy to see it now.
My view on civil rights is quite similar to the thhue expressed in Lutz’s post. But I would like to frame the argument in a slightly different way.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers a variety of areas. The majority are not quite continuous. I’m not seeing people who argue that black people should not be allowed to vote, sit at lunch counters, or sit in front of a bus. I don’t see people claiming public interest programs should. No one sees that unions should be allowed to refuse entry to black people, or that employment agencies should be under the wing to screen black job seekers. Or, certain public schools should be white only. I think that almost all of the civil rights debates actually relate to the set of DEI-related issues in employment and university admissions that form a small part of the bill. The most confessional civil rights issue relates to concepts such as “affects,” “positive behavior,” and “diversity.”
But many of these controversial policies violate the obvious implications of civil rights law. In fact, at least some of the law (Title VII) explicitly suggests that it is not necessary for businesses to aim for racial or gender diversity.
(j) Anything counted under this title is interpreted as requesting that an employer, employment agency, work organisation, or employer, employment agency, work organisation, or joint labor committees be given this title prioritize the origins of an individual or race, religion, religion, gender, gender, or national. He was recognized or employed in any training programme, classified for employment by an employment agency or labor organization, recognized for membership, classified by the work of the organization, or compared to the total number or percentage of people in such race, color, religion, gender, gender, or national community, state, section, or OHER area.
There are several ways people think about this situation:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a good law, but it was not implemented as written. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad law because it empowered governments that would inevitably be abused.
A few people on the right may argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a bad law because racism is good. But a more mainstream, conservative objection was that civil rights (incorrectly) interpret discrimination against whites and Asians as finding businesses and universities. Eleven civil rights defenders have gained political power and have learned that their current purpose is not to overturn society.
Here are some analogies.
Roev. Before Wade was overthrown, the pro-life movement wanted individual states to make decisions about abortion policies. Today, they have a national ban on abortions. During Joe McCarthy’s days, the person on the left allowed more freedom of speech in places like Berkeley, California. The left eleven gained control of UC-Berkeley and moved to the opposite free speech.
Unfortunately, few people have consistent principles. Most people are free only when they make choices that others would approve. In Ace, they try to impose value on the remaining population. Developing countries are full of “liberation movements.” As an ace, they usually go from a liberation movement to a cross-breeding movement. Nelson Mandela’s almost saint-like reputation comes from the fact that he was an exception. After he came to power, he refused to smash the enemy.
The Trump administration is also facing a decision for luck. Should universities not interfere with discrimination to achieve diversity, or should they replace one type of discrimination with another type?
Poetry This is another example. Environmentalists have made it extremely difficult to make a new project fuss by building complex bureaucratic processes with orders that approve the project. In the past, conservatives have appointed Toez’s hurdle to the fact that it aims to prevent the construction of coal-fired power plants. Today, conservatives use it before limiting to stop clean energy:
The federal perm halt for wind energy was first laid out in the January 20th executive order. It directed the agency to suspend all approvals for Wind Pharm’s federal review. . . . The wind industry provides about 10% of the country’s electricity, and is developing many new projects, especially in the Great Plains and the Atlantic.
Last month, the Trump administration shut down a major wind farm under construction off Long Island, the Empire Wind Project. It was designed to provide enough power to power half a million homes. It already provided necessary permits, but Home Secretary Doug Bulljoe suggests that the analysis of the Biden administration during the Apolival process is insufficient.
