allowing ephemerality

came for the baby animal gifs, stayed for the social justice. blogging about library science type things at Archivistic


Ask me  
Reblogged from ethiopienne
ethiopienne:

Sonia Sotomayor delivers blistering dissent against affirmative action ban

The Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action Tuesday, but not without a blistering dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor said the decision infringed upon groups’ rights by allowing Michigan voters to change “the basic rules of the political process … in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.”
"In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination," Sotomayor added. “This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”
The court’s 6-2 decision upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan state Constitution that prevents public colleges from using race as a factor in its admissions. As the AP noted, the ruling provides a boost for other education-related affirmative action bans in California and Washington state.
ABC News pointed out that Sotomayor has been open about the role affirmative action has played in her personal life. In her memoir “My Beloved World,” Sotomayor wrote that it “opened doors” for her.
"But one thing has not changed: to doubt the worth of minority students’ achievement when they succeed is really only to present another face of the prejudice that would deny them a chance even to try," she wrote.
Read Sotomayor’s full dissent here.

ethiopienne:

Sonia Sotomayor delivers blistering dissent against affirmative action ban

The Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action Tuesday, but not without a blistering dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor said the decision infringed upon groups’ rights by allowing Michigan voters to change “the basic rules of the political process … in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.”

"In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination," Sotomayor added. “This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”

The court’s 6-2 decision upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan state Constitution that prevents public colleges from using race as a factor in its admissions. As the AP noted, the ruling provides a boost for other education-related affirmative action bans in California and Washington state.

ABC News pointed out that Sotomayor has been open about the role affirmative action has played in her personal life. In her memoir “My Beloved World,” Sotomayor wrote that it “opened doors” for her.

"But one thing has not changed: to doubt the worth of minority students’ achievement when they succeed is really only to present another face of the prejudice that would deny them a chance even to try," she wrote.

Read Sotomayor’s full dissent here.

(via severin)

Reblogged from thenationmagazine

People of Color Are Already Getting Hit the Hardest by Climate Change

thenationmagazine:

"Sixty-eight percent of African Americans live within thirty miles of a coal-fired power plant, the zone of maximum exposure to pollutants that cause an array of ailments, from heart disease to birth defects. Communities of color breathe in nearly forty percent more polluted air than whites. African American children are three times as likely to suffer an asthma attack.”

-Steven Hsieh interviews Jacqueline Patterson, Executive Director of the NAACP’s Climate Justice Initiative

Reblogged from smithcollege
smithcollege:

@catelenz’s photo of #smithcollege #springatsmith

Siiiiiiiiigh

smithcollege:

@catelenz’s photo of #smithcollege #springatsmith

Siiiiiiiiigh

Reblogged from brutereason
Here’s the thing. Men in our culture have been socialized to believe that their opinions on women’s appearance matter a lot. Not all men buy into this, of course, but many do. Some seem incapable of entertaining the notion that not everything women do with their appearance is for men to look at. This is why men’s response to women discussing stifling beauty norms is so often something like “But I actually like small boobs!” and “But I actually like my women on the heavier side, if you know what I mean!” They don’t realize that their individual opinion on women’s appearance doesn’t matter in this context, and that while it might be reassuring for some women to know that there are indeed men who find them fuckable, that’s not the point of the discussion.

Women, too, have been socialized to believe that the ultimate arbiters of their appearance are men, that anything they do with their appearance is or should be “for men.” That’s why women’s magazines trip over themselves to offer up advice on “what he wants to see you wearing” and “what men think of these current fashion trends” and “wow him with these new hairstyles.” While women can and do judge each other’s appearance harshly, many of us grew up being told by mothers, sisters, and female strangers that we’ll never “get a man” or “keep a man” unless we do X or lose some fat from Y, unless we moisturize//trim/shave/pushup/hide/show/”flatter”/paint/dye/exfoliate/pierce/surgically alter this or that.

That’s also why when a woman wears revealing clothes, it’s okay, in our society, to assume that she’s “looking for attention” or that she’s a slut and wants to sleep with a bunch of guys. Because why else would a woman wear revealing clothes if not for the benefit of men and to communicate her sexual availability to them, right? It can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that it’s hot out or it’s more comfortable or she likes how she looks in it or everything else is in the laundry or she wants to get a tan or maybe she likes women and wants attention from them, not from men?

The result of all this is that many men, even kind and well-meaning men, believe, however subconsciously, that women’s bodies are for them. They are for them to look at, for them to pass judgment on, for them to bless with a compliment if they deign to do so. They are not for women to enjoy, take pride in, love, accept, explore, show off, or hide as they please. They are for men and their pleasure.
Why You Shouldn’t Tell That Random Girl On The Street That She’s Hot » Brute Reason  (via mercurieux)

(Source: brutereason, via ohyoumeanthisgatekey)

Reblogged from coffeeandconlangs
reaganing:

twentysomethingvagabond:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.


Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?
And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything
2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her
3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.


I always couch things in “somewhat”, “people say” “might” instead of just asserting how I feel. I’ve been working on it. Buuuuuut

A secondary consideration, but: this also pisses me off because linguists would never support such prescriptivism. The “Academy of Linguistic Awareness” is completely made up.

reaganing:

twentysomethingvagabond:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.

Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?

And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything

2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her

3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.

I always couch things in “somewhat”, “people say” “might” instead of just asserting how I feel. I’ve been working on it. Buuuuuut

A secondary consideration, but: this also pisses me off because linguists would never support such prescriptivism. The “Academy of Linguistic Awareness” is completely made up.