AI tech jobs are popping up and the salaries are huge
Diane King Hall, Anchor – August 18, 2023
Are AI job wages of up to $900,000 justified?
Streaming platform Netflix (NFLX) is sharing artificial intelligence job postings offering salaries of up to $900,000. NYU Professor Vasant Dhar sits down with Yahoo Finance Live’s Diane King Hall to discuss whether these AI jobs wages are wholly justified amid widespread artificial intelligence adoption and current labor market conditions. “Assuming [these companies] get some clarity around what AI really means for their business, these numbers are justified,” Dhar states. “Now, the trouble is that there’s a high variance in people’s abilities and skills to actually translate something into real sort of money, business profits.” Inversely, companies have sought value and efficiency through the adoption of AI models this year, resulting in layoffs and projected downsizing. “We should not conflate the ability of the computer to speak well with knowledge,” Dhar says, adding: “The thing to keep in mind is that these pre-trained models make it easy to build applications really quickly, but they’ll inherit the limitations of these models.”
The AI boom is trickling into the job market, and the pay is good, if you can get it.
Netflix recently posted a position paying as much as $900,000 for someone with extensive experience working with machine learning platforms. (The posting appeared to be taken down after a little too much press, but one with a similarly high range is still visible if you search AI.)
It’s not the only high-paying job in generative AI. Nvidia has postings paying in the $400,000 range. Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet’s Google also have positions with lucrative salaries advertised.
“AI is the new Wall Street,” NYU Professor Vasant Dhar says. “Now it is Big Tech that is making big money, these are the new cash machines. It is all about intelligence, the future is all about intelligence. There isn’t enough supply of really good people.”
With the six-figure jobs piling up, AI might not be the jobs destroyer that some thought, at least for certain skilled professions.
And as Netflix hires AI positions paying nearly a million dollars, its writers remain on strike — in part due to issues surrounding generative AI.
SAG-AFTRA actors and Writers Guild of America (WGA) writers walk the picket line during their ongoing strike outside Sunset Bronson studios and Netflix offices in Los Angeles, California, U.S., Aug. 11, 2023. (Mario Anzuoni/REUTERS)
The challenge, Dhar says, is that “there is a very high variance of ability out there. Some people are worth every penny, you can’t pay them enough, and there are people who aren’t worth it. The question is, can you tell the difference?”
If AI isn’t at the core of a company’s business, that distinction becomes even harder and more important, which gives companies already in the AI game — think Google, Nvidia, and Microsoft — a leg up.
Job market disruption
While these new lucrative jobs are popping up, AI is displacing others. A new study by Technalysis Research, “Generative AI in Enterprise,” shows that 10% of companies polled have replaced humans in roles with AI. The study also showed that another 36% of companies are expecting an impact of AI on staffing.
“The reality is, just as we have seen with any major technological innovation, there are shifts in the workplace and some roles get displaced,” said Bob O’Donnell, the president of Technalysis and analyst who conducted that research.
So why are people shaking in their boots about the impact of AI on the labor market?
O’Donnell says that the key difference now is who it’s happening to.
“It has happened in the past, but it was blue collar and now people are more concerned because of the potential impact to white collar,” he said.
The OpenAI logo in front of a computer screen displaying output from ChatGPT, Tuesday, March 21, 2023, in Boston. (Michael Dwyer/AP Photo)
Man versus machine
AI’s impact on the labor market ultimately depends on how good it is, since the early developmental jobs at Netflix and Nvidia are unlikely to move the needle for anyone but the lucky few.
Arthur AI researchers conducted a Hallucination Experiment to see just how good generative AI is at answering a slew of questions ranging from math facts and US presidents to Moroccan political leaders.
There were several cases where the bots devolved into hallucinations, instances where generative artificial intelligence delivers misinformation. GPT-4 performed the worst on the test of US presidents, but it did the best on math. Anthropic’s Claude 2 performed the best on US presidents. Meta’s Llama 2 needs work overall; researchers noted more hallucinations with its large language model compared to GPT and Claude 2.
At least for now in the battle of man versus machine, generative AI has shown itself to be imperfect, capping the pace of structural changes, at least somewhat.
‘I’m not wanted’: Florida universities hit by brain drain as academics flee
Joseph Contreras – July 30, 2023
Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty Images
With the start of the 2023-24 academic year only six weeks away, senior officials at New College of Florida (NCF) made a startling announcement in mid-July: 36 of the small honors college’s approximately 100 full-time teaching positions were vacant. The provost, Bradley Thiessen, described the number of faculty openings as “ridiculously high”, and the disclosure was the latest evidence of a brain drain afflicting colleges and universities throughout the Sunshine state.
Governor Ron DeSantis opened 2023 with the appointment of six political allies to the college’s 13-member board of trustees who vowed to drastically alter the supposedly “woke”-friendly learning environment on its Sarasota campus. At its first meeting in late January, the revamped panel voted to fire the college president, Patricia Okker, without cause and appoint a former Republican state legislator and education commissioner in her place.
Over the ensuing weeks, board members have dismissed the college’s head librarian and director of diversity programs and denied tenure to five professors who had been recommended for approval.
In a statement given to 10 Tampa Bay about faculty vacancies that was issued earlier this month, NCF officials said that six of the openings were caused by staff resignations and one-quarter of the faculty member departures “followed the changes in the New College board of trustees”. One of those resignations was submitted by Liz Leininger, an associate professor of neurobiology who says she started looking for an exit strategy as soon as she learned about the DeSantis appointments in the first week of 2023.
The 40-year-old scientist joined the New College faculty in 2017, drawn by the opportunities of living near her ageing parents on Florida’s Gulf coast and working closely with undergraduates at a relatively small school where total student enrollment hovers around 700. But as the Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed a series of bills over the last two years that sought to curtail academic freedom and render a professor’s tenure subject to review at any time, Leininger witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of the new laws on her colleagues’ morale.
“All of the legislation surrounding higher education in Florida is chilling and terrifying,” said Leininger, who is rejoining the biology department at St Mary’s College in Maryland this fall where she had been teaching before moving to central Florida. “Imagine scientists who are studying climate change, imagine an executive branch that denies climate change – they could use these laws to intimidate or dismiss those scientists.”
The new laws have introduced a ban on the funding of diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Florida’s public colleges and universities, withdrawn a right to arbitration formerly guaranteed to faculty members who have been denied tenure or face dismissal, and prohibited the teaching of critical race theory, which contends that inherent racial bias pervades many laws and institutions in western society, among other changes.
In the face of that and other legislation backed by DeSantis and Republican lawmakers that has rolled back the rights of Florida’s LGBTQ+ community, many scholars across the state are taking early retirement, voting with their feet by accepting job offers outside Florida or simply throwing in the towel with a letter of resignation.
Students protest at New College of Florida, one of Ron DeSantis’s particular targets. Photograph: Rebecca Blackwell/AP
Hard figures for turnover rates will not be available until later this year, and none of the other 11 state-run universities are expected to match New College’s exceptionally high percentage of faculty vacancies.
A spokesperson for the office of State University System chancellor, Ray Rodrigues, issued a statement asserting that the “State University System of Florida has not received any concerns from our member institutions indicating turnover this year has been any higher than previous years. Turnover occurs every year.”
But Andrew Gothard, the state-level president of the United Faculty of Florida labor union, predicts a loss of between 20 and 30% of faculty members at some universities during the upcoming academic year in comparison with 2022-23, which would signify a marked increase in annual turnover rates that traditionally have stood at 10% or less.
James Pascoe moved to the Gainesville campus of the University of Florida in 2018, the same year that DeSantis was first elected governor. Three years later, the Dallas native started looking for jobs elsewhere when new disclosure requirements made it more difficult for Pascoe to apply for grants. An unsuccessful attempt by the DeSantis administration to prohibit three University of Florida colleagues from testifying as expert witnesses in a voting rights case raised more alarm bells in Pascoe’s mind.
Then came the passage of legislation in March 2022 that banned the discussion of gender identity and sexuality with elementary school students between kindergarten and the third grade. Pascoe and his male partner began to worry about their future eligibility for adopting children in an environment that was becoming increasingly hostile to gay couples in their judgment.
“It was becoming clear that the university was becoming politicized,” the 33-year-old assistant professor of mathematics said. “When I was waiting to hear back on job applications, they started passing all these vaguely anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ+ laws. The state didn’t seem to be a good place for us to live in any more.”
In the summer of 2022, Pascoe accepted a comparable position at Drexel University in Philadelphia. His partner followed suit by joining the biology department at Haverford College in a nearby suburb.
The prevailing political climate in Florida has complicated efforts to recruit qualified scholars from outside the state to fill some vacancies. Kenneth Nunn served on a number of appointment committees during the more than 30 years he spent on the faculty of the University of Florida’s law school. He said the task of persuading highly qualified applicants of color to move to Gainesville has never been more difficult under a governor who, earlier this year, prohibited a new advanced placement course in African American studies from being taught in high schools.
DeSantis came under renewed criticism this month when the state department of education issued guidelines recommending that middle school students be taught about the skills slaves acquired “for their personal benefit” during their lifetimes in bondage.
“Florida is toxic,” noted Nunn, one of the few Black members of the law school faculty who says he chose to retire last January in part because of the legislated ban on the teaching of critical race theory. “It has been many years since we last hired an entry-level African American faculty member. They’re just not interested in being in a place where something with the stature of critical race theory is being denigrated and attacked.”
The 65-year-old Nunn will be teaching law in the fall in Washington DC as a visiting professor at Howard University, one of the nation’s leading historically Black colleges and universities.
“I could have stayed in a place where I’m not wanted and tough it out,” he adds. “Or I could retire and look for work elsewhere.”
In the end, Nunn says, concerns about his professional career and even his own physical safety made that decision a relatively easy one.
Whitmer signs bills impacting Michigan teachers and potentially bringing more to the state
Clara Hendrickson, Detroit Free Press – July 26, 2023
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a series of bills Wednesday that expand bargaining power for teachers’ unions, make it easier for out-of-state teachers and counselors to move to Michigan and eliminate a restriction on setting teacher pay that only applies to Detroit educators.
“This legislation will build on our efforts to recruit and retain the talented educators that provide Michigan students with a phenomenal education,” Whitmer said in a statement.
The bills aren’t the only changes to education policy the governor has made recently. Earlier this month, she overhauled the state’s education department, announcing the creation of a new one that will consolidate early childhood and higher education programs currently spread across multiple state agencies. Last week, she signed an education budget that will provide free breakfast and lunch to all PreK-12 public school students and expand eligibility to enroll in Michigan’s state-funded preschool program.
Here’s a look at the other changes the bills signed by Whitmer will bring to Michigan’s classrooms.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer speaks at a bill signing ceremony in Suttons Bay on July 20, 2023 before signing the education budget.
Whitmer signed House Bill 4354, which eliminates restrictions on teacher’s unions from bargaining with public schools about performance evaluation systems and teacher placements. House Bill 4820 signed by Whitmer also changes how seniority is considered in public schools’ personnel decisions. Currently, length of service generally cannot be factored into those decisions.
Whitmer also signed House Bill 4044, which repeals a ban on public employers paying higher wages and providing more generous benefits after a collective bargaining agreement expires. And Whitmer approved House Bill 4233 which eliminates a prohibition against public school employers from using school resources to help unions collect dues or fees from public school employees. Bill sponsor state Rep. Jaime Churches, D-Wyandotte, touted the legislation for enabling teachers to automatically have their union dues withdrawn from their paychecks.
House Minority Leader Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, blasted the legislation. “As they hand out favors and power to their union boss allies, Michigan Democrats are continuing to undermine public education and put the needs of students last,” he said in a statement. With the exception of House Bill 4233 which garnered the support of one GOP lawmaker − state Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Waucedah Township − Republicans opposed the package bills.
Senate Bill 359 signed by Whitmer eliminates the requirement that compensation for Detroit teachers and administrators be determined primarily on the basis of job performance. Instead, it allows teacher and administrator pay to take into account the number of years spent on the job and advanced degrees held by Detroit Public Schools Community District employees.
The bill has its origins in a 2016 Republican effort aimed at addressing financial challenges facing Detroit’s public school system which created a different process for determining teacher and staff compensation from the rest of the state.
Bill sponsor state Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, said in a June statement that the ban on considering longevity and advanced degrees to determine Detroit teachers’ compensation was an “unfair prohibition” that has caused teachers to leave the district.
Lure out-of-state teachers and counselors to Michigan
Finally, Whitmer signed Senate Bills 161 and 162 aimed at making it easier for school teachers and counselors to move to Michigan. The pair of bills reduce the barriers both out-of-state teachers and school counselors face to work in Michigan’s schools by easing the state’s teacher and school counselor certification requirements.
Sheryl Kennedy, the legislative liaison for the Michigan Department of Education, said about a quarter of Michigan teachers moved in from out of state and the bills could make Michigan a destination for educators. “Michigan’s kind of really becoming a place where teachers really want to go from other states,” she said during a hearing on the legislation.
A classroom sits empty at the Cesar Chavez Academy High School in Detroit last March after the pandemic hit.
Senate Bill 161 enables those with a teaching credential from a federally recognized Indian tribe or another country to apply to the state superintendent of public instruction to receive a teaching certificate without needing to take teacher certification exams in Michigan. The bill also eases the criteria for those eyeing a move from another state to Michigan to teach. For example, it allows those with a teaching certification from another state, federally recognized Indian tribe or country to be eligible for a Michigan professional education certificate if they have successfully taught for at least three years in their prior jurisdiction.
Senate Bill 162 creates similar pathways for out-of-state school counselors.
Florida Schools Will Teach How Slavery Brought ‘Personal Benefit’ to Black People
Allison Quinn – July 20, 2023
Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty
Middle school students in Florida will soon be taught that slavery gave Black people a “personal benefit” because they “developed skills.”
After the Florida Board of Education approved new standards for African American history on Wednesday, high school students will be taught an equally distorted message: that a deadly white mob attack against Black residents of Ocoee, Florida, in 1920 included “acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans.”
Dozens of Black residents were killed in the massacre, which was perpetrated to stop them from voting.
According to members of the board, that distorted portrayal of the racist massacre is factually accurate. MaryLynn Magar, a member of the board appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, said at the board’s meeting in Orlando on Wednesday that “everything is there” in the new history standards and “the darkest parts of our history are addressed,” the Tallahassee Democrat reported.
The majority of the speakers who provided public testimony on the planned curriculum were vehemently opposed to it, warning that crucial context is omitted, atrocities are glossed over, and in some cases students will be taught to “blame the victim.”
“I am very concerned by these standards, especially some of the notion that enslaved people benefited from being enslaved,” state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando) said, per Action News Jax.
“When I see the standards, I’m very concerned,” state Sen. Geraldine Thompson said at the board meeting. “If I were still a professor, I would do what I did very infrequently; I’d have to give this a grade of ‘I’ for incomplete. It recognizes that we have made an effort, we’ve taken a step. However, this history needs to be comprehensive. It needs to be authentic, and it needs additional work.”
“When you look at the history currently, it suggests that the [Ocoee] massacre was sparked by violence from African Americans. That’s blaming the victim,” the Democrat warned.
“Please table this rule and revise it to make sure that my history, our history, is being told factually and completely, and please do not, for the love of God, tell kids that slavery was beneficial because I guarantee you it most certainly was not,” community member Kevin Parker said.
Approval of the new standards is a win for the DeSantis administration, which has effectively sought to create a new educational agenda that shields white students from feeling any sense of guilt for wrongs perpetrated against people of color. The Florida governor signed the “Stop WOKE Act” last year to do just that, restricting how issues of race are taught in public schools and workplaces.
In keeping with the administration’s crusade against “wokeness,” Education Commissioner Manny Diaz defended the new standards against criticism, saying, “This is an in-depth, deep dive into African American history, which is clearly American history as Governor DeSantis has said, and what Florida has done is expand it,” Action News Jax reported.
Paul Burns, the Florida Department of Education’s chancellor of K-12 public schools, also insisted the new standards provide an exhaustive representation of African American history.
“Our standards are factual, objective standards that really teach the good, the bad and the ugly,” he was quoted as saying Wednesday by Florida Phoenix. He denied the new standards portray slavery as beneficial.
Although education officials say teachers are meant to expand upon the new curriculum in the classroom, critics say teachers are unlikely to do that for fear of being singled out and possibly punished for being too “woke.”
The Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, called the new standards “a big step backward for a state that has required teaching African American history since 1994” in a statement after Wednesday’s vote.
Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, also condemned the new curriculum, saying in a statement: “Our children deserve nothing less than truth, justice, and the equity our ancestors shed blood, sweat, and tears for.”
“Today’s actions by the Florida state government are an attempt to bring our country back to a 19th century America where Black life was not valued, nor our rights protected. It is imperative that we understand that the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow were a violation of human rights and represent the darkest period in American history. We refuse to go back,” he said.
Biden uses clips of Marjorie Taylor Greene speech for new campaign ad
Shania Shelton – July 19, 2023
Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg/Getty Images
President Joe Biden on Tuesday posted a campaign ad promoting his legislative wins by using clips from a recent speech GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene gave at the Turning Point Action Conference where she compared Biden to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.
“Joe Biden had the largest public investment in social infrastructure and environmental programs, that is actually finishing what FDR started, that LBJ expanded on, and Joe Biden is attempting to complete,” Greene said in the video set to cheerful music.
The ad continues with another clip from the speech Greene gave over the weekend in which she explains the Biden administration’s investments. “Programs to address education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid labor unions, and he still is working on it,” Greene said.
In response to Greene’s speech, the White House tweeted on Monday: “Caught us. President Biden is working to make life easier for hardworking families.”
The congresswoman from Georgia – who was recently ejected from the House Freedom Caucus – tweeted on Tuesday, “This is really what Joe Biden approves,” in response to the campaign ad alongside a longer clip of her speech. In the new clip, she discusses economics in the country, explaining that “we are now $32 trillion in debt with record high homelessness, 40-year record inflation.”
The Biden administration has been promoting “Bidenomics” over the past few weeks – an economic theory which rejects the idea of “trickle-down” policies in favor of focusing on the middle class. It is expected to be a centerpiece of Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign.
The president first embraced the idea in June at a time when the administration was searching for a solution to Americans’ negative perception of the economy and a vehicle to take credit for an economy that is increasingly trending in the right direction.
DeSantis has boasted about people flocking to Florida, but the transplants have helped the state reach inflation levels that are twice as high as the national average
Kelsey Vlamis – July 18, 2023
Coconut Grove, a neighborhood in Miami, Florida.Demetrius Theune/Getty Images
Florida was the fastest-growing state in 2022, but inflation is also booming there.
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach had the highest inflation of any large metro area in April.
High inflation and home insurance prices are among the costs that transplants may not anticipate.
Some areas of the Sunshine State face the highest inflation rates in the US, even more than twice as high as the national average, which hit 3% in June, the lowest since early 2021.
The Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area had a rate of 9% for the year that ended in April, according to the Consumer Price Index. It was the highest rate of any metro area with more than 2.5 million residents. The area’s inflation rate was also high for the year that ended in June, at 6.9%. Another Florida metro area, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, had an inflation rate of 7.3% for the year that ended in May.
He has also bragged that leftist ideologies in other states have pushed people away and driven them to Florida, but the state in part has its recent transplants to thank for the rising prices.
Amanda Phalin, an economist at the University of Florida, told CBS Miami that the state’s growing population and increased demand for housing have driven up prices. “A lot of people are still coming to Florida because the economy is really strong, and many like the fact that we don’t have an income tax like in New York, for example,” she said.
Florida was the fastest-growing state in 2022, but residents moving for perceived economic benefits may not realize the impact of higher prices. There’s also another cost of moving to Florida that transplants may not anticipate: steep homeowners insurance.
The Guardian reported the state is facing a crisis thanks to skyrocketing premiums for hurricane coverage. A 68-year-old resident who has lived in Florida for 30 years told the outlet if her homeowner insurance premium rises any more she “may have to sell up and move to another state.”
Editorial: In DeSantis’ Florida, obsession with LGBTQ Floridians keeps hitting new lows
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board – July 18, 2023
Joe Raedle/Orlando Sentinel/TNS
By now, most Floridians get it: The DeSantis administration is obsessed with targeting the LGBTQ community in Florida dishonestly, irrationally and repetitively across multiple venues.
The latest salvos will be fired on Wednesday, when the state Board of Education takes up a group of proposals that would once again drag Florida educators down the path of persecution. Sooner or later, local school boards — who are elected by, and accountable to, the voters of each county — must start pushing back against this ridiculous, ongoing assault.
The policies up for adoption at Wednesday’s meeting could be a good place to start — assuming they pass, which they likely will. “They’re just continuing the fear mongering from session,” says Jon Harris Maurer, public policy director for Equality Florida, describing 2023 legislative changes that fall squarely into the more-of-the-same-homophobic-nonsense category.
An expansion of the rules intended to force students to use bathrooms associated with their gender determination at birth. This is an offshoot of 2023’s ridiculous “potty purity” law (HB 1521) that attempts to keep transgender individuals out of bathrooms that correspond with their identity across multiple venues, including private businesses and government buildings. Lawmakers have consistently ignored the fact that by determining gender through at-birth assignment, the law is all but guaranteed to generate more uneasiness because it forces individuals to use restroom facilities that don’t match with their current appearance or names. Yet lawmakers seem intent on forcing these uncomfortable confrontations, and have combined the bathroom provision with another rule that threatens the licensure status of teachers who violate it. Yet in most polls taken over the past 10 years, fewer than 40% of voters think that bathroom use by transgender people should be so illogically dictated.
A provision that would extend the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” provisions to middle schools. Remember when DeSantis’ then-communications director put extensive effort into convincing Floridians that the prohibition on classroom discussion of gender and sexual protection was to protect very young children from too much sexy talk — which she used as cover for the ugly contention that anyone who lined up against that legislation was a “groomer?” Well, this rips that argument to shreds: Middle-school-aged children are certainly aware that same-sex relationships exist. Yet this rule also threatens teachers with misconduct charges for talking too much about that reality.
A new rule that seems to be aimed at “protecting” students from unexpected exposure to drag queens at any school-sponsored event or activity, because that’s something that apparently happens all the time. (Or not.) The rule is written so broadly and confusingly that it could apply to many situations that most people would describe as harmless, including performances of Shakespeare plays, showing of the Disney film “Mulan” or a review of some religious texts.
Finally, a rule that punishes teachers that talk too much about preferred pronouns, which could make life difficult for English teachers.
We say these measures are likely to pass, because the Board of Education is currently acting as the public-school arm of DeSantis’ political committee. Still, we laud the organization of human-rights groups including Equality Florida, who intend to mobilize for Wednesday’s meeting (scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the Rosen Shingle Creek resort on Universal Boulevard in Orlando).
Their continued vocal opposition provides an ongoing reminder that, no matter how many times DeSantis and his supporters attack, this will never be something that passes without comment — and that it runs counter to the sentiments of the vast majority of the American people, who have long ago adopted a live-and-let-live approach to gender identity and sexual orientation. In an August 2022 Quinnipiac University poll, fewer than one in four Americans still opposed same-sex marriage. Support for civil-rights protections for LGBTQ people are almost as strong.
We hope, however, that local school officials are also paying attention. Unlike DeSantis’ supporters, who largely hold themselves aloof from the sentiments of Florida voters, they have to face their supporters. Even in the most conservative counties, many school board members are starting to express anguish over the pain they’re being forced to inflict. A widespread rebellion against these cruel and illogical policies might bring retaliation, since DeSantis has become increasingly fond of removing anyone from public office who dares to disagree with him.
But it would be a noble sacrifice. Florida needs more public officials to find the courage to stand up to Florida’s self-designated emperor and say “Governor, for someone so focused on ‘Don’t Say Gay,’ you sure seem to bring it up a lot. Find someone else to execute your politicized cruelty. We’re done.”
The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick.
The Supreme Court is on a mission to ensure the US assumes the form that the Republican Party wants
Chauncey DeVega – July 5, 2023
Clarence Thomas; John RobertsPhoto illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that ended race-based affirmative action programs at colleges and universities, voided President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, and made it legal for people to cite sincere “religious objections” as a reason for discriminating against the LGBTQ community (and presumably other marginalized individuals and groups as well) in ways that violate civil rights laws.
The Washington Post bizarrely described the Supreme Court’s last term as “restrained.” The reality is very much the opposite: it was a political and judicial bloodletting, a collective act of radical right-wing judicial activism that will have serious negative implications for the American people and the country as a whole for decades to come. These decisions by the “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court are part of a decades-long project to return American society to a time period before the civil rights movement(s) of the 1960s and 1970s and back to the Gilded Age (if not before) when white men and moneyed interests – a true tyranny of the minority —were able to exercise dominion over American society, largely uncontested.
In an attempt to make better sense of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions about race-based affirmative action and its broad implications for American democracy, the law, and society, I recently spoke with Khiara M. Bridges. She is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law whose scholarship examines race, class, reproductive rights, and the intersection of the three. Professor Bridges is the author of three books, the most recent of which is Critical Race Theory: A Primer.
This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
How are you feeling given the Supreme Court’s decisions this week, in particular the decision to ban the consideration of race in university and college admissions?
I’m tired – even though none of this is surprising. All of this was perfectly predictable. We knew that decisions such as the one gutting affirmative action were almost inevitable after Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court. The decisions this week are the realization of a long-term project by the Republican Party to use the federal judiciary to shape the nation into its vision of what the country ought to be.
It has been an exhausting week.
How do we connect the dots between the affirmative action decision and the decision to allow “religious objections” to be used as a justification for discriminating against gays and lesbians — and presumably other groups as well?
“I think that what we are seeing is just how hellbent the Supreme Court is on ensuring that the U.S. assumes the form that the Republican Party wants it to assume.”
Those two decisions represent a backlash against people of color and LGBTQ people. Both groups have realized substantial gains in terms of being conceptualized as equal and valuable members of the body politic. Many people want to reverse those gains. They want to return LGBTQ people and Black and brown people to second-class citizenship. The court is doing the bidding for those folks.
The Republicans, “conservatives” and other members of the larger white right are joyous and celebrating the end of affirmative action. Black and brown folks, white folks and others who believe in multiracial democracy and equality are hurting and lamenting this decision and what it symbolizes and means for our society and the harm it does to real people. How are you reconciling those divergent responses?
I understand these celebrations as consistent with a right-wing effort to erase America’s brutal history of racial subjugation and to deny the consequences that history has on society today. Conservatives are celebrating the myth that America is “post-racial” and the lie that events like chattel slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, “urban renewal,” etc. really have no effect on contemporary society. And most of all, they are celebrating the fact that there is a Supreme Court that is willing to affirm those fictions.
In the most basic sense, what are the competing visions of the law and its role in society that we are seeing play out with the Supreme Court this week, and of course the Age of Trump these last few years?
I think that what we are seeing is just how hellbent the Supreme Court is on ensuring that the U.S. assumes the form that the Republican Party wants it to assume. It is important to keep in mind that the Court creates its own docket; it selects the cases that it wants to hear. And it is no coincidence that the Court is deciding to hear cases that touch on all of these hot button issues: affirmative action, abortion, guns, religious freedom, LGBTQ rights. And of course, it is no coincidence that the Court is deciding these cases in ways that are consistent with the Republican Party’s platform.
It is also important to keep in mind that it is really hard to reconcile these decisions with one another in terms of an overarching theory of law. So, the government can force people to carry pregnancies to term, but the government cannot forbid people from carrying firearms outside of the home. Institutions cannot consider race when making college admissions decisions, but they can consider their customers’ sexual orientation and gender identity when deciding whether to sell products and services to them. Those decisions cannot be reconciled with one another very easily in terms of law. It’s all politics.
In simple terms, how do we explain what “affirmative action” is or isn’t and how it’s been distorted by the right wing and its propaganda machine for the general (white) public?
In order to understand what affirmative action is in the context of university admissions, one has to understand how decisions traditionally have been made about who is admitted to a school. This generally has consisted of evaluating a student’s GPA and performance on standardized tests. Affirmative action moves beyond just grades and standardized testing. It insists that those measures are not the totality of an individual. We actually know empirically that grades and standardized testing only imperfectly predict success in college. For example, a student that has had to raise their younger siblings while they’re in high school probably has the determination and grit to succeed in a four-year university. We might guess that a student who has managed to learn and succeed in an underfunded school lacking in resources will likely learn and succeed at a university or college that has lots of resources.
Race-based affirmative action specifically says that we ought to be conscious of a student’s race when making admissions decisions, because a student’s race might help us understand their grades and standardized test scores. Race contextualizes those numbers. Despite what conservatives say about it, affirmative action is not some type of “handout” like “welfare” for lazy and unqualified Black and brown people.
Of course, the right-wing members of the court did not mention legacy admissions or how the children of big money donors get preferential treatment — what is a de facto type of white privilege and white unearned advantage, an “affirmative action” program for unqualified white people. Likewise, the majority did not object to how at most universities a decision is made to admit more “unqualified” male students as a way of achieving gender parity in a given cohort.
There is a conservative argument about so-called “mismatch,” where students of color are imagined to be admitted through affirmative action into institutions where they supposedly do not have the skills and preparation to succeed. Clarence Thomas mentions this theory repeatedly. But the science is not there to justify mismatch theory. It has been debunked time and time again, which Justice Sotomayor mentions in her dissent. Interestingly, the right-wing justices who claim to be concerned about mismatch in terms of students of color going to competitive colleges and universities do not have the same level of concern about mismatch in terms of legacy admits.
“It is really hard to reconcile these decisions with one another in terms of an overarching theory of law.”
Your dad and granddad having graduated from college does not prove that you have the academic chops, or discipline, or determination to succeed in the school. Similarly, your family having donated millions of dollars to the university does not translate into academic ability and intelligence. Students who lack the highest SAT scores and GPAs, but who are admitted because they are athletes, would fall into that category as well. The court was not concerned about those students either.
For me, this reveals that the justices who signed on to these opinions are not really worried about whether Black and brown students are going to do well in elite institutions; it is just that they do not want Black and brown students to “take the seats” of white and Asian students who they believe actually deserve to be at these elite institutions.
In their decision to end affirmative action at the nation’s colleges and universities, the right-wing justices summoned up Brown v. Board of Education. This is part of a larger project by the “conservative” movement and white right to weaponize, distort, abuse, and misrepresent the victories of the long Black Freedom Struggle and civil rights movement as a way of undermining and ultimately reversing them. Please help me process their twisted readings of Brown v. Board and the Equal Protection Clause.
Brown v. Board looms over these debates about affirmative action. Those who oppose race-based affirmative action and those who support it both say that their position is faithful to Brown v. Board. In 1954, the court decided in Brown that racially separate schools were inherently unequal and that they were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Brown is subject to many interpretations. One interpretation is that Brown mandated colorblindness; it forbade school districts from taking into consideration students’ races when assigning them to schools.
Another equally plausible interpretation of Brown is that the court was concerned with anti-subordination. In this view, segregated Black and white schools were unconstitutional because they functioned to subordinate Black people; they functioned to subjugate Black people vis-à-vis their white counterparts. So, which is the better understanding of Brown? Was Brown about colorblindness, or was it about antisubordination?
In my opinion, Brown was about antisubordination. And I get there because I think that we have to pay attention to the motivations behind the Equal Protection Clause, which was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause, was proposed and ratified in order to make formerly enslaved Black people equal citizens.
“The conservative majority on the court does not care; they are very comfortable with subjugating non-white people in America.”
The Equal Protection Clause was designed to undo slavery. And the problem of chattel slavery was not that white people weren’t being colorblind. The problem of chattel slavery was that white people thought that Black people were an inferior race of humans and treated them accordingly. The Equal Protection Clause was ratified not to make white people colorblind, but rather to ensure that Black people were no longer treated as subhuman. Race-based affirmative action programs are consistent with what the 14th Amendment requires because it is interested in real racial equality, not just colorblindness.
A Supreme Court justice made the intervention not too long ago that to get past racism one must take account of race.
That guy’s gone, right? It’s really just a numbers game with the Supreme Court today. Before Justice Kennedy retired, conservatives on the court just didn’t have the votes to instantiate this view that the Constitution mandates colorblindness. Now they do. It’s not that those arguments make more sense today than they did 10 years ago. It’s not that there is more evidence to support that right-wing view. It is most certainly not true that we as a country are closer to a multiracial democracy than we were ten years ago. Ultimately, the only thing that has changed is the composition of the court.
As a factual and historical matter, the United States Constitution is not “colorblind.” In reality, it is a document that represented the interests of the white slave-owning class and was one of the bedrock documents of a herrenvolk racial state. Serious historians and other scholars have repeatedly documented how as a group the framers and other white elites saw little if any contradiction between white on Black chattel slavery, white supremacy, and their vision of (white) democracy. Yet, the right-wing justices insist on the Constitution somehow being “colorblind” and then reasoning from that incorrect premise to whatever conclusion they want to reach. Taking them seriously, how is such a view of the Constitution structured?
I think they believe that if you keep saying it, somehow it becomes true. But reality does not work that way. The Constitution is very much aware of race. The document literally contemplates race. The 3/5th clause is an obvious example. The majority opinion in the court’s recent affirmative action decision repeats “colorblind” so many times that an uninformed person may actually think that if you read the Constitution, you would see the words “colorblind” or “colorblindness.” But it doesn’t say that. What it does say is that no person shall be denied “equal protection of the laws.” Conservatives insist that those words mean “colorblindness.”
What the conservative majority will say is that during those lamentable and tragic moments in our nation’s racial history, the court was not interpreting the Constitution to be colorblind. They would say that the problem was that the court was allowing people to think about race. However, in my view, the problem of separate but equal, for example, wasn’t that people were thinking about race. The problem was how people were thinking about race. And they were thinking about race in order to conserve the existing racial hierarchy and to protect white supremacy. The conservative majority pretends that it cannot see the difference between those divergent uses of race. These conservative justices—all of whom got the finest educations from competitive universities—supposedly cannot see the difference between thinking about race in order to subjugate somebody and thinking about race in order to attempt to undo that subordination. Of course, they can see the difference. They know better.
The distinction here is important. Do the right-wing justices, like Clarence Thomas for example, actually believe in the factually wrong version of history and the Constitution (and reality) that they are articulating in the decision to end affirmative action, and more generally in terms of their legal theories? Or are they just ideologues and operatives, zealots, who don’t really care about the substance of the law and the Constitution and are just using it to advance a larger political and societal project?
I don’t know. And I don’t think it matters. What I do know for sure is that they are very comfortable signing on to decisions and handing down interpretations of the Constitution that will hurt people of color. In the end that is all I need to know. They won’t lose any sleep at night thinking about how students of color are going to be even more underrepresented in the nation’s colleges and universities. They don’t care about the real world implications of striking down affirmative action; they don’t care that, quite literally, lives will be lost, as Justice Jackson so compellingly and brilliantly demonstrated in her dissent when she talked about the effect that doctor-patient racial concordance has on reducing Black infant mortality. The conservative majority on the court does not care; they are very comfortable with subjugating non-white people in America.
In the northeast corner of Indiana, soybean and corn fields stretch across the landscape, separating the schools of the East Noble School Corporation by as much as 20 miles. Last summer, when interim food service director Roger Urick geared up to offer summer meals to the district’s 3,400 students, pandemic-era waivers allowing him to offer to-go meals to families had expired, forcing him to go back to the old model.
Instead of being able to offer take-away meals at several locations in the area, Urick was required to serve meals at two designated locations where kids had to come in and eat their meals on site. (In the school nutrition world, this is known as a “congregate” setting.)
Participation dropped to half of what it had been the two summers prior. “We found it was difficult for parents and kids to come to our two buildings and eat on site,” says Urick.
Before the pandemic, an estimated 6 out of 7 kids who qualified for free or reduced lunch could not access food in the summer largely due to the mandate that it be eaten on site, a problem that’s particularly acute in rural regions.
“We have known for a very long time that structural, fundamental changes were needed in the summer meals program because of barriers like transportation to meal sites,” says Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at Share Our Strength, the nonprofit whose No Kid Hungry campaign focuses on access to summer meals. “School buses aren’t running over the summer. A lot of summer meals would be (served) outside, but there can be extreme heat or rain.”
Early in the pandemic, though, congregate anything was forbidden and restrictions around summer feeding were stripped away. Families were allowed to pick up several days’ worth of meals in the summer or even have them delivered. As a result, the number of summer meals served nationwide in July 2020 was nearly triple the number served in July 2019, according to No Kid Hungry.
In December 2022, as part of the end-of-year $1.7 trillion budget bill, Congress approved $29 billion in meal programs for low-income kids, and permanently loosened the rules around congregate feeding during the summer—a win for child nutrition advocates. But it came with a cost, as Democrats agreed to end pandemic-era SNAP “emergency allotments” a few months early. (The end to those allotments has left millions of Americans with slashed benefits.)
“We would have liked to see those allotments continue,” says Clarissa Hayes, the deputy director of school and out-of-school time programs for the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “We never like to see one program cut to prop up another program.”
The boost in school meal funding will pay for two major changes. Starting this summer, families in rural areas will once again be allowed to pick up meals or have them delivered, if districts and community groups are available to do so. This “non-congregate” option is expected to benefit up to 8 million children living in rural areas, according to a USDA spokesperson. And come next summer, families of children who qualify for free and reduced meals at school will receive a $40 monthly grocery stipend when school is out, creating permanent summer assistance.
These two changes will “work together to end summer hunger and fill that gap that many families face,” says Hayes.
Long Overdue Option
The history of summer food service dates to the late 1960s, when the federal government provided grants to states to offer meals over break. Decades later, summer feeding programs have greatly expanded and are entrenched in many low-income and rural communities.
School districts participate in the Seamless Summer Option (SSO), which provides reimbursement for all meals delivered to kids under the age of 18. All children eat free in communities where at least 50 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), meanwhile, offers reimbursement to summer enrichment programs (such as camps and religious organizations) that offer meals in low-income areas.
Over the last few months, after the USDA greenlit “non-congregate” meal services in rural areas, most states opted to participate, and school districts, along with community groups that provide summer meals, have been busy submitting plans to whichever state agency oversees SFSP or SSO.
Vega, at Share Our Strength, says offering more flexible feeding options in rural areas is long overdue. “There aren’t a lot of community locations that [rural] kids can regularly and easily get to during the summer, much less twice a day for breakfast and lunch,” she says. “This is the level of service our rural communities have needed all along.”
In Indiana’s Noble County, where about half of the student population is eligible for free and reduced lunch, Urick says he’s “excited” to once again offer a service that should help ensure that more kids get access to meals after last year’s low participation rates.
The summer, families are able to pick up meals at seven different sites in the area, including a public library and two public housing apartment complexes. When Urick announced the change to the community, he says he was “overwhelmed” by grateful emails and calls. Though many school kitchens face staffing shortages, Urick has had no problem finding workers eager to earn some summer money preparing and delivering meals. But not all rural districts are that fortunate.
Becky Woodman, cafeteria operations manager at the Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District in Northern California, says she’s not participating in a grab-and-go or delivery option for summer feeding largely due to staffing. “We’re just not in a position to do that,” she says. “All of our cafeteria staff are 10-month employees.”
During the height of the pandemic, Woodman says, meal delivery to families was a huge challenge. The furthest delivery site was an 80-minute drive down a one-lane road. During the school year, she was able to lean on bus drivers and other district employees to help. “It took a lot of people working really hard and being creative and making things work,” she recalls. Over the summers of 2020 and 2021, though, that meal delivery service paused.
This summer, she has hired two people to serve breakfast, lunch, snacks, and supper at an elementary school located on the Hoopa Valley Reservation, where the majority of the district’s roughly 1,000 students live. The meals are included in a month-long summer school that typically only attracts about 70 students. She expects “100 percent” of those students will take advantage of the meals. And in a district in which nearly 68 percent of kids qualify for free and reduced lunch, she says many in the community will likely turn to nonprofits and other outreach programs during the summer for help with groceries and meals.
Idaho Republican Party’s rule changes have a precedent: The Soviet Politburo | Opinion
The Editorial Board – June 30, 2023
Ryan Suppe
Imagine Rep. Jane Smith voted against a bill to censor public libraries.
Returning home to her rural Idaho district, she is ordered to appear before the Central Committee, where Party officials pepper her with questions. Her answers are unimportant.
The Central Committee announces the decision it made weeks ago: Smith will be cast out, the fact that she won the support of 70% of voters in the last election notwithstanding.
Because the requirement for wielding power is not loyalty to the people who elected you, but loyalty to the party bosses.
This isn’t a scene from the Soviet bloc. It’s the Idaho Republican Party’s immediate plan for running politics in the Gem State under the guidance of Premier Dorothy Moon, a plan it moved at its summer meeting in Challis to begin implementing with a series of rules.
As Melissa Davlin of Idaho Public Television reported, the party passed resolutions that include allowing central committees to summon, censure and even revoke the right of lawmakers to run as Republicans; revoking the voting privileges of the Young Republicans, College Republicans and Republican Women; supporting a constitutional amendment to allow the party to control the primary; and issuing a vote of no confidence in Gov. Brad Little and a number of Republican House members for failing to support library censorship.
The organizing logic is simple: Whatever power there is, it ought to belong to the Party.
Whatever power these ideologically extreme and power-hungry Party bosses successfully take, it will come at the expense of Idaho voters.
Because policy positions favored by huge numbers of Republican voters in Idaho are formally verboten under the Idaho GOP’s official platform.
If a Republican lawmaker doesn’t sign on to a proposal to revoke your right to cast a ballot in U.S. Senate elections, they’ve violated the GOP platform, which requires support for revoking the 17th Amendment.
If they support the continued existence of some number of grizzly bears or wolves in Idaho, they’ve arguably violated it as well.
Or if they don’t support a return to the gold standard.
Or if they don’t support the repeal of Medicaid expansion.
Or if they don’t support nullifying the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing marriage equality.
Or if they support the right of a child who was raped by a family member to have an abortion, or if they think that such an abortion should be handled in some way other than with a murder charge.
For these and countless other examples of crimethink, the people’s elected officials could be hauled in and stripped of their right to call themselves Republicans by a bunch of people that most Idaho Republican voters have never heard of, much less voted for.
With Idaho’s most powerful party fully hijacked, the open primary initiative seems to be the best bet for keeping the political process under popular control, precisely because it would diminish the political relevance of parties. It would allow everyone to weigh in on which candidates will face off in the general election, regardless of party, and it would allow voters to rank general election candidates in order of preference, so they wouldn’t have to worry they’re throwing their votes away if a third-party candidate is their first choice.
None of this would help people the extremist Party has termed RINOs or secret liberals or any of that nonsense. Conservatives would do well with an open primary and ranked-choice voting system because Idaho is full of conservative voters.
Those elected under such a system would know that it was the people, not the Party bosses, who put them in office. They would know it is the people, not the Party bosses, to whom they answer for their record.
Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser, and community member Mary Rohlfing.
