This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Obviously Harvard wants to discriminate on the basis of race; no one ever claimed they didn’t except themselves. I don’t think we’re going to get a straight answer as to why, exactly- and anyways, to me the more interesting question is ‘how did they get this sealed in the first place’.
Is it usual for federal judges to do this?
They got it sealed because they had a friendly judge and if you are an opposing party its bad practice to make a fuss about everything the opponent asks for if it isn't materially affecting your case in a significant way.
As to why they are obsessed with AA, there are a few charitable takes: Genuinely believe in oppression narratives, genuinely believe in restitution narratives, etc. There are also uncharitable ones like hatred of Asians/Whites, I personally think it is an aesthetic fetish.
More options
Context Copy link
Federal judges do indeed have a habit of rubberstamping unopposed motions to seal and this becomes the status quo up until the moment a journalist (or Eugene Volokh) catches wind of it and files a motion to unseal. The caselaw is very solidly in favor of open access, and so judges kind of act embarrassed at being caught with their pants down and make a big stink about having to grant the motion to unseal.
In this case, my guess is that SFFA didn't really want to agree to seal the document, but also didn't want to make a big fuss about a collateral issue since they were going to remain in front of that same judge (also, agreeing to seal sometimes comes along with settlements). The only people who are positioned to push the issue are outside observers like journalists, but they need to be lucky enough to know about it in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link