Title seems to be misleading.
Per this article, it blocks the Fearless Fund from awarding grants only to black women. I haven't read the Post article because it's paywalled, but their version seems to have forgotten that very important detail.
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2465 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The headline is technically correct. The fund is for grants to disadvantaged populations. They are not able to issue those grants until the litigation finishes
A panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled Monday that an Atlanta-based venture capital firm should be temporarily blocked from issuing grants reserved for businesses owned by Black women, saying that doing so would probably discriminate against business owners of other races.
The ruling comes after Fearless Fund, a VC firm dedicated to funding businesses founded by women of color, was sued last August by a group led by affirmative-action opponent Edward Blum. Blum’s cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina culminated with the Supreme Court overturning race-conscious college admissions last summer.
The federal appeals court in Atlanta reversed a lower-court decision that the fund could proceed with its grant contest amid the litigation.
…
The appeals panel ruled 2-1 that allowing the $20,000 awards to be issued under the fund’s Fearless Strivers Grant Contest would be “substantially likely” to violate a federal statute that prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. The panel also ruled that the plaintiffs, who were not identified by name in their legal complaint, had standing to proceed with their case.
The judges in the majority, Kevin Newsom and Robert Luck, were appointed by President Donald Trump. The dissenting judge, Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama.
I'm assuming this is a racial discrimination issue. Unfortunately I can't read the article. I don't know where I stand on this, on the one hand I understand the historical disparity and the need to support the black community, on the other hand I want literally everything to be truly equal which I'm aware will never happen.
The difficulty is that the only way to achieve equal status is through equitable treatment. But some people don't want equitable treatment, oftentimes because they don't want equal status.
And this is really the legal issue at hand. Is equitable treatment allowed, where we consider things like centuries of oppression against women and BIPOCs. If we can consider that, a grant meant to spur women and minority-owned businesses makes sense. If we move to a rare blind system, that does not make sense.