Regarding Title VI, the requirement seems to be that 'Artists must identify as Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color (BIPOC)'. If a male who 'identifies as a woman' has to be accepted as a woman (in sports, the arts, universities, etc), does a white person who identifies as Black, Indigenous and/or BIPOC have to be accepted as Black, Indigenous and/or BIPOC?
One question I have about this is: 'What the heck is BIPOC?" - Follow up questions include: A) Who is included in the newspeak designator BIPOC and why?; B) Who decided who is included in the newspeak designator BIPOC and when was the vote taken about it? and C) When did BIPOC become a federally recognized racial or ethnic designator for anyone? I don't see it on the census or anywhere else on Federal Data sites. 🤷♀️
Please help me understand why this is an issue? One of the priorities of the Federal government is to empower and give the same opportunity to historically underserved populations. It is ONE program that targets this population. Should we rid of other programs that target service to historically underserved and marginalized communities? For example, there are programs specifically serving BIPOC populations to address inequities in healthcare, particularly for women and children (also known as MCH under Title V). It's to level the playing field. Equity is different than equality.
“In planning the rollout of ARP funds this year, the NEA encouraged applications from organizations serving communities traditionally underserved by the government, those applying for federal support from the NEA for the first time, and diversity with respect to geography and budget size.”
FAIR's letter explains precisely why a grant program that excludes white applicants is a problem. Please refer to its excellent analysis of the state of the law today.
Progressives are, quite understandably, fierce defenders of the rule of law when Trump and his operatives and followers threaten to undermine it. Please help me understand why a progressive or any other American who believes in upholding the law would support a program that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
It's important to differentiate between laws and whether those laws are enforced. It's evident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) was a response to racism. Unfortunately, that law has not been consistently enforced and therefore has created more inequalities over the last five decades. There are many programs now addressing the outcomes of UNENFORCED laws that have been on the books for years. Just because something in writing (laws) does not translate into reality. So here we are......
I’m not sure that is the best way to address this issue.....I wonder what could be other avenues to explore to address outcomes of unenforced laws over decades while also recognizing the laws on the books in present day need to be enforced? Acknowledging both truths and meeting halfway.
That's very interesting, but it is a political argument whereas FAIR is making a legal case that the arts organization in question is out of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The argument would carry no weight in a court of law.
Regarding Title VI, the requirement seems to be that 'Artists must identify as Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color (BIPOC)'. If a male who 'identifies as a woman' has to be accepted as a woman (in sports, the arts, universities, etc), does a white person who identifies as Black, Indigenous and/or BIPOC have to be accepted as Black, Indigenous and/or BIPOC?
One question I have about this is: 'What the heck is BIPOC?" - Follow up questions include: A) Who is included in the newspeak designator BIPOC and why?; B) Who decided who is included in the newspeak designator BIPOC and when was the vote taken about it? and C) When did BIPOC become a federally recognized racial or ethnic designator for anyone? I don't see it on the census or anywhere else on Federal Data sites. 🤷♀️
Please help me understand why this is an issue? One of the priorities of the Federal government is to empower and give the same opportunity to historically underserved populations. It is ONE program that targets this population. Should we rid of other programs that target service to historically underserved and marginalized communities? For example, there are programs specifically serving BIPOC populations to address inequities in healthcare, particularly for women and children (also known as MCH under Title V). It's to level the playing field. Equity is different than equality.
“In planning the rollout of ARP funds this year, the NEA encouraged applications from organizations serving communities traditionally underserved by the government, those applying for federal support from the NEA for the first time, and diversity with respect to geography and budget size.”
FAIR's letter explains precisely why a grant program that excludes white applicants is a problem. Please refer to its excellent analysis of the state of the law today.
Progressives are, quite understandably, fierce defenders of the rule of law when Trump and his operatives and followers threaten to undermine it. Please help me understand why a progressive or any other American who believes in upholding the law would support a program that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
It's important to differentiate between laws and whether those laws are enforced. It's evident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) was a response to racism. Unfortunately, that law has not been consistently enforced and therefore has created more inequalities over the last five decades. There are many programs now addressing the outcomes of UNENFORCED laws that have been on the books for years. Just because something in writing (laws) does not translate into reality. So here we are......
I’m not sure that is the best way to address this issue.....I wonder what could be other avenues to explore to address outcomes of unenforced laws over decades while also recognizing the laws on the books in present day need to be enforced? Acknowledging both truths and meeting halfway.
That's very interesting, but it is a political argument whereas FAIR is making a legal case that the arts organization in question is out of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The argument would carry no weight in a court of law.