Over the years reading the PS it was fun to see new bylines, young people reporting, often with fresh eyes on local news. There is and has been a “way things are done in Warren County” and those younger and more diverse reporters picked up on some of that. It was frustrating when those reporters left for other opportunity but it was also fun to see their names pop up now and again at larger papers. There is a bit of hometown pride in that. Yes, we are a 95+% white area, so bringing young women into the newsroom was a big step toward diversity, equality.
People, especially kids, need to see diversity in their lives and in prominent positions in order to develop a fuller view of the larger world they live in. Here in Warren County we suffer a lack of women in elected leadership. Glens Falls has been making strides in recent years, and (maybe surprisingly to many) so has Thurman, but for the most part an elected woman in are a rarity. There are only 4 women of 20 county supervisors. In the last year 3 women have resigned and another has chosen not to seek re-election. Queensbury made some strides toward greater equality for a short time but that has stalled. As a Queensbury former chair of the Qby Dem committee I heard from many women who were frustrated by the hostility faced by women who ran for office, even to those who were elected.
People get their backs up when someone uses the M word (misogyny) and they’ll tell you stuff like “I support women” - the old “some of my best friends are women” bit. But results do not lie. In the history of Queensbury only a handful of women have been elected to town or county leadership - even counting clerk positions that we think of as “women’s jobs.”
If we want women to serve we must change the playing field. We don’t call it the “old boy” network for nothing.
I wonder how many people have actually read the opinions of the Supreme Court on the matter of affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Court did not rule against diversity in colleges and universities. In the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the [14th Amendment's] Equal Protection Clause.”
Roberts said that “at the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Roberts concluded that race-based admissions considerations could only be used in cases of strict scrutiny, a situation where there is a compelling governmental interest, and any action must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Related to the North Carolina case, Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with the majority and also concluded “that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate this practice. I write to emphasize that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not either.”
I think we also must remember the cases at hand were brought by Asian Americans who were in fact found to have been discriminated against by these institutions of higher learning because of who they were.
We will see if the SCOTUS majority actually believes what it wrote. A group filed suit challenging another affirmative action program at Harvard that "lack[s] sufficiently focused and measurable objectives... [and] meaningful end points": legacy admissions.
Much hyperbole around the Affirmative Action decision. Maybe a better path will emerge, if these “elite” institutions of higher learning are actually committed to fostering diversity. I won’t hold my breath.
This is why the gutting of so many local papers is a key part of the industry's death spiral. I read that some Gannett papers downstate don't have a single reporter in the newsroom, even ones covering large population areas like Poughkeepsie/Newburgh and Westchester/Rockland counties.
As expected, the "expanded" print edition b.s. press release from Lee/PS was deceitful. The non-print editions are skeletons. Today's e-edition has exactly ONE local article. I'm happy to pay $11 a month for daily local journalism. But if the majority of the editions are going to be entirely wire crap which I can get for free elsewhere, I'm going to have to reconsider my subscription. This is a catastrophic misallocation of resources by Lee: slashing the exact thing that gives the product value and makes it worth paying for.
Volume 2 pre-ordered this morning - looking forward to it!
Thank you Mary.
Over the years reading the PS it was fun to see new bylines, young people reporting, often with fresh eyes on local news. There is and has been a “way things are done in Warren County” and those younger and more diverse reporters picked up on some of that. It was frustrating when those reporters left for other opportunity but it was also fun to see their names pop up now and again at larger papers. There is a bit of hometown pride in that. Yes, we are a 95+% white area, so bringing young women into the newsroom was a big step toward diversity, equality.
People, especially kids, need to see diversity in their lives and in prominent positions in order to develop a fuller view of the larger world they live in. Here in Warren County we suffer a lack of women in elected leadership. Glens Falls has been making strides in recent years, and (maybe surprisingly to many) so has Thurman, but for the most part an elected woman in are a rarity. There are only 4 women of 20 county supervisors. In the last year 3 women have resigned and another has chosen not to seek re-election. Queensbury made some strides toward greater equality for a short time but that has stalled. As a Queensbury former chair of the Qby Dem committee I heard from many women who were frustrated by the hostility faced by women who ran for office, even to those who were elected.
People get their backs up when someone uses the M word (misogyny) and they’ll tell you stuff like “I support women” - the old “some of my best friends are women” bit. But results do not lie. In the history of Queensbury only a handful of women have been elected to town or county leadership - even counting clerk positions that we think of as “women’s jobs.”
If we want women to serve we must change the playing field. We don’t call it the “old boy” network for nothing.
Some very good points.
I wonder how many people have actually read the opinions of the Supreme Court on the matter of affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Court did not rule against diversity in colleges and universities. In the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the [14th Amendment's] Equal Protection Clause.”
Roberts said that “at the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Roberts concluded that race-based admissions considerations could only be used in cases of strict scrutiny, a situation where there is a compelling governmental interest, and any action must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Related to the North Carolina case, Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with the majority and also concluded “that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate this practice. I write to emphasize that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not either.”
I think we also must remember the cases at hand were brought by Asian Americans who were in fact found to have been discriminated against by these institutions of higher learning because of who they were.
We will see if the SCOTUS majority actually believes what it wrote. A group filed suit challenging another affirmative action program at Harvard that "lack[s] sufficiently focused and measurable objectives... [and] meaningful end points": legacy admissions.
I hope so as well!
Much hyperbole around the Affirmative Action decision. Maybe a better path will emerge, if these “elite” institutions of higher learning are actually committed to fostering diversity. I won’t hold my breath.
This is why the gutting of so many local papers is a key part of the industry's death spiral. I read that some Gannett papers downstate don't have a single reporter in the newsroom, even ones covering large population areas like Poughkeepsie/Newburgh and Westchester/Rockland counties.
Yes, I agree with you. It should be a priority.
As expected, the "expanded" print edition b.s. press release from Lee/PS was deceitful. The non-print editions are skeletons. Today's e-edition has exactly ONE local article. I'm happy to pay $11 a month for daily local journalism. But if the majority of the editions are going to be entirely wire crap which I can get for free elsewhere, I'm going to have to reconsider my subscription. This is a catastrophic misallocation of resources by Lee: slashing the exact thing that gives the product value and makes it worth paying for.