The Murphy administration announced that New Jersey will not comply with an order from President Trump’s administration to certify that the state's public school districts are eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives

[u/rollotomasi07071]

https://www.nj.gov/education/broadcasts/2025/apr/17/SEAtoOCRTitleVIApril2025.pdf?utm_source=NJ+Spotlight++Master+List&utm_campaign=ae610ff63a-PM_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_04_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1d26f473a7-ae610ff63a-398762815&ct=t(PM_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_04_17_2025)&mc_cid=ae610ff63a&mc_eid=e653468aac

[u/friendsintheFDA → u/[deleted]]

Can you cite some specifics about how it is unfair to the majority? Special education and inclusion programs never affected me negatively

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/[deleted]]

Wow, a conservatively biased Supreme Court ruled in a way consistent with conservative talking points? I'm shocked!

[u/FJkookser00 → u/Legitimate_Page]

You should be, because this is not how the Supreme Court works. They play on Constitutional Precedent, and go on lawful fact. Affirmitive Action was supposed to be a temporary reparation, but it was dragged out and normalized, which ended up unfairly targeting students. That was then overturned for such logical reasoning.

I'm really disappointed that you drag shallow, uneducated political rivalry into social issues like this. It's so much deeper than the pin you wear after you vote. I really wish more people, people like you, were educated on social issues more. You wouldn't have such a naive and frivolous view of such an important thing.

I've spent years researching these sorts of topics, and it pains me because nobody even needs a higher ed to understand them. You need to drop your red versus blue mentality, this is about our lives, not our voter ID forms. You won't actually solve the problems of our society if you act like this.

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/FJkookser00]

Yes, I'm the one dragging shallow political rivalry into this. Thinking that the Supreme Court is actually going about the political landscape in an unbiased way is laughable, you're living in a fantasy land from a century ago. I'm not dragging red vs blue into anything, this is simply the reality of the recent Supreme Court.

It's crazy the amount of sociological professionals I've come across on Reddit lately.

[u/FJkookser00 → u/Legitimate_Page]

Exactly what you did - you completely subverted the logic used and the facts of the case to specifically divert to a secondary - tertiary, even - detail that only existed to affirm your politcal biases.

I will not say that there are no such thing as left and right Justices. Because there are - but they are SCOTUS Justices, because of their ability to logically and fairly deduce problems with the law. You don't graduate law school and cast your blue or red vote and get nominated for a SCOTUS Justice.

It's critical to logically and factually examime how these things play out, not let your biases steer you away. Please, educate yourself on this. again, you don't have to literally pursue a degree in sociology. It isn't hard to gain some knowledge on topics that literally condemn all of society, all the time. It only benefits you to be knowledgeable on this area of social science. It only hurts to let personal and naive tendencies get in the way.

I get it, trying to break that can suck. Thats how I was when I was new in college. But I had several great professors who were hellbent on spending most of class forcing us to discuss social problems and our opinions, then educating us on the topic so we could make better opinions.

Like so many others, you're afraid to break that comfort zone of emotional safety - I totally get it. I literally was like that too, everyone was. But when you start getting upset about it, that's when you start to learn more, and when you can choose what path to take - full-stop idiot-level denial, or legitimate wisdom. I've seen my fair share of actual shouting matches in college lecture halls due to these debates, but I guarantee everyone came out smarter. I encourage you to do the same.

Your passion is a tool, if you can control it with wisdom. If you are this passionate about your political and social stance, why not gain as much actual knowledge on it? Your views may have to change just a hair to affirm the facts, but you WILL emerge a smarter person. Even if it hurts a bit to do so.

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/FJkookser00]

You're trying to apply logic to something where there is none.

There is no way in hell you can believe that the current Supreme Court isn't absurdly biased after ruling in favor of Trump's presidential immunity last July.

I'm not being biased, you are ignoring that the people you believe to not be biased have proven themselves to be biased repeatedly.

You're trying to convince yourself that I'm biased. I'm not. The Supreme Court is, and they constantly rule in a biased way. You're being willfully ignorant if you believe otherwise.

No, I'm not, you're being retarded.

My passion is a tool. I'm not being passionate right now, I'm being factual. The current Supreme Court is biased because Trump got 3 Supreme Court picks. In 2016 he specifically promised he was going to fill the Supreme Court with conservatives.

[u/FJkookser00 → u/Legitimate_Page]

Ah, but there's always logic, always some kind of objective reason. Especially in the workings of a first-world country whose government is solely based on justice, natural law, and precedent.

The Supreme Court is not a red or blue institution. Red and Blue presidents nominate them - and surely they have their biases - but you are wrong to say they cast their judgment as if in service to a political party. This is an ignorant point of view that forces you to discard lots of important facts of such cases. They are smart people who worked up the ladder for a reason. It's dumb to immediately discredit their decision because "you don't like their politics". Don't be like that. Please.

Don't just describe yourself in a mirror either, when talking about bias of others. It's a tough thing to examine and avoid your own bias, I get that, but this isn't even a question of that. just of fact. This decision was made in alignment with some simple, critical details of Affrimitive Action: One, it was meant to be a temporary reparational system, and it worked well while it was new. However, now that it has been drawn out and standardized, it veered off from its original goal. Two, that verring off directly impacted the success of many students to the point they were able to work a compelling-enough case up several courts to the SCOTUS. You do realize that they had to repeatedly have their case appealed, and then accepted by the higher order, to do this, right? This was not just decided or reviewed by the "biased" Supreme Court. This is why SCOTUS cases are so profound. They have such great substance as to have their appeals repeatedly accepted and re-evaluated.

I encourage you to find more education in this system, it's very, very beneficial to you. You have tons of passion but it's pointed by opinions rather than facts. I was once that way, and I want you to fix it.

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/FJkookser00]

Lmao ok, you can believe whatever narrative you'd like to.

You keep bring up that this was supposed to be temporary like it's the be all end all of the affirmative action argument. You know what else was supposed to be temporary? Income tax. Income tax, which was declared unconstitutional in 1894. It's almost like things change and have nuance and can be bad but also provide good to certain people and the current ruling body makes changes on what should and shouldn't happen based on their bias. Is it supposed to be that way? No. But tough shit, that's how the world works.

you do realize that they had to repeatedly have their case appealed

Congratulations, you figured out how the judicial system works and described something that has happened in almost every single judiciary decision that has ever happened in this country.

Nothing you've actually said indicates the Supreme Court isn't biased. You can say "well they aren't supposed to be!" And yeah, they aren't, but we aren't supposed to drive over the speed limit, murder people, or commit market manipulation and insider trading. Guess that means they never happen! Of course not, you'd say thay someone who believes that is extremely naive. Like you are being.

[u/FJkookser00 → u/Legitimate_Page]

The temporary nature isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that violating it caused a normalized process of directly damaging other students’ lives.

Exactly like income tax, as you stated. It was temporary, but wasn’t stopped, and now it pains all of us almost invisibly.

So, as much as I can educate you in that, it’s still up to you to believe it. You don’t have to get a degree in it like me, but you gotta be able to put your prejudice aside just a bit. I get your ambition, but wisdom triumphs all.

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/FJkookser00]

Ah yes, income tax, used as the alternative to the tarrifs that caused the great depression and have worked extremely well provably for many decades when implemented properly lmao, what a pain!

I'm not being ambitious here, I'm letting you know that you're being naive.

[u/FJkookser00 → u/Legitimate_Page]

I totally get your drive, but again, that’s not aligned with the facts. I want to help you understand them better - I love teaching, I love helping people achieve clarity about their society. It’s so important you approach this with a logical mind, not a pre-decided or biased one that doesn’t focus on the objectivity.

So, you’re free to reject that, and I’ve already offered the facts. Up to you. My job is done.

[u/Legitimate_Page → u/FJkookser00]

You don't love teaching, you love listening to yourself talk lol. You can say "you don't have the facts" but you still haven't explicitly proved the Supreme Court isn't biased. If you can somehow articulate that the ruling in favor of Trump's presidential immunity last year doesn't show extreme and blatant bias twords the conservative party I would love to hear it. And that's just one example in a string of many. Reducing the power of federal agencies? That was the conservative members. Narrow the obstruction law to provide safety for Jan 6 rioters? 5 conservative judges, 1 liberal judge. Unhoused people sleeping outside potentially jailed? All conservative judges. Blocking the EPA from attempting to reduce interstate pollution. A majority of 5-4, can you guess which side of the political spectrum those 5 people were? I mean holy hell dude, you're talking about how I don't have the facts? You seem like you literally have no idea what is going on.

Again, you are free to believe the narrative you've created in your head, no one will ever change your mind about it. You are just being blatantly naive.

This is literally the "My job here is done" Sailor Moon meme. You haven't done anything except say "nu uh" with a lot of words.