Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster quoted from an article in the New York Times discussing the group, "Students for Fair Admissions". This organization successfully sued Harvard University over race-based admissions preferences resulting in a Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action in college admissions. This academic year is the first in which incoming students were admitted under the new rules and the diversity mixes of the freshman classes of top universities have been watched closely. Students for Fair Admissions represented Asian students in its case against Harvard and expected that the Supreme Court ruling would lead to an increase of Asian students among the leading schools. However, three prominent universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — actually saw declines in Asian American enrollment. As a result, the organization is threatening to investigate whether those institutions are correctly following the law and to sue them if they are not. I have discussed multiple threads on the topic of race and college admissions in this blog as many such threads have been among the most active. The topic has been discussed so frequently that I'd expect the forum's posters to be sick and tired of the topic by now. Indeed, several posters demonstrated considerable fatigue with the topic. But as this thread's position as the most active thread shows, there is stil considerable capacity among posters to debate the topic. Most of the attention in this thread is focused on two groups, Asian-Americans and Black Americans. The primary argument is whether there are too many, the correct amount, or too few of each group. That argument is complicated by the fact that there is little agreement about the correct numbers, let alone whether colleges acting legally to reach that number. Fundamentally this is a dispute between whether universities should seek to admit the "most qualified" students or a "diverse" group of students. Those who favor admitting the most qualified students are not always able to agree on which metrics should determine who is most qualified, but often settle on tests scores. As such, they generally oppose any situation in which a student is accepted with a lower test score than a student who is turned down. Those who value diversity normally take a broader view and argue that diversity strengthens the student body. In their view, a diverse group of students which might include a few with lower test scores is, overall, stronger than a homogenous class consisting only of those with top stats. Colleges themselves have generally taken the second view and, the Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, have tried to recruit diverse student bodies. The issue up for debate, therefore, is whether those efforts are legal. Posters in this thread obviously have various views. One thing I noticed in this thread that I hadn't noticed in previous threads on similar topics is self-described Asian and White posters arguing strongly in favor of diversity. But that may be the only welcome development in this otherwise tiresome thread.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Teamsters decline to endorse a candidate…", the original poster refers to the Teamsters union as "Cowards and hypocrites" due to its failure to endorse a candidate in this year's presidential election. The Teamsters decision is a setback for Vice President Kamala Harris because the Teamsters have generally endorsed the Democratic candidate in recent presidential elections. In fact, the union endorsed President Joe Biden previously. Much of the responsibility for the Teamsters decision appears to fall on Teamsters President Sean O’Brien. O'Brien has had a warm relationship with former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, visiting him at Mar-a-Lago and speaking at the Republican National Convention. O'Brien also organized surveys of Teamsters members that showed strong support for Trump over Harris, though the accuracy of those surveys is disputed. Many of those responding in this thread attributed the failure of the union to endorse Harris to racism and misogyny. They believe that had Harris been a White man, the union would have made the endorsement just as they had done with Biden. Others claim the union is simply recognizing the pro-Trump sentiment among its members. A number of those responding are angered by the union's failure to endorse Harris because Biden, along with Harris, has been very supportive of unions. In fact, Harris was the deciding vote leading to passage of the American Rescue Plan which, among other things, protected Teamsters pensions from massive cuts. Trump, on the other hand, supports anti-union measures and has refused to back legislation that the Teamsters favor. The primary impact of not receiving the union's endorsement to Harris is likely to be in terms of donations from the union and manpower for on-the-ground organizing. However, that impact may be softened by the fact that many local Teamster branches immediately offered their own endorsements of Harris. This includes Teamsters in several swing states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada. For her part, Harris promised to support unions, including the Teamsters, whether they endorsed her or not. However, in the case of a Harris victory in November, O’Brien is likely to find himself in a difficult position.

Next was the Taylor Swift thread that I discussed on Monday and which has continued to be very active all week. But today will be the last day that thread is among the most active because I ended up locking it yesterday. After that was a thread titled, "DH is not the person I married :(" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her husband used to leave the house early in the morning for work, returning after 6 pm. She believes these long hours indicated that he was a hard worker. However, since the COVID pandemic, he has mostly worked from home. Now he sleeps in and stays up late watching TV. He has an exercise class and golfs during normal working hours. His schedule is so light that he has suggested that the original poster get a higher-paying job because he can do more of the errands and housework. The original poster is upset because she was originally attracted by her husband's drive and motivation. Now he is acting like he is retired and has no apparent ambition. This disappoints the original poster and also, she believes, sets a bad example for their teenaged children. Many posters have no problem deciding what advice to offer the original poster. A number of those responding suggest that she more or less call his bluff and ask him to begin the household and childcare duties now and, if after a period of time, he proves he can handle the chores, she will look for a job. Some thought that he might be having an affair and encouraging her to get a better job as a tactic to reduce the alimony that he may have to pay. True to DCUM relationship forum tradition, some posters argued that she divorce him. But many of those responding were a bit confused. The original poster has no way of knowing whether her husband was really hardworking during the hours that he used to be gone. Some posters suggest that he might have always been taking it easy. Others take the alternate view and argue that he was previously breaking his back trying to provide the original poster the type of life that she enjoyed. Posters question whether he still has the same income with his new leisurely life. The original poster, who responded to many posts, never addressed that question. Some posters question why the original poster respected her husband for working hard but now, assuming he is earning the same income with a lighter schedule, she doesn't want to work harder herself. The original poster explains in several follow-up posts that she enjoys being a mother and doing the tasks that entails. She doesn't want to give up that role. She particularly doesn't want to give it up when the kids are finally at an age where taking care of them is easy. During the difficult years, her husband was always at work and never around to help out. Now he wants to be a stay at home dad when that is an easy job. Many posters sympathize with the original poster in this regard. Another suspicion held by the original poster is that her husband wants her to get a higher-paying job because he wants their financial situation to be comparable to that of a new group of friends with whom he is now spending time and who have higher incomes. Frankly, it sounds like what might be best for this relationship is for the original poster's husband to be required to return to his office to work.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. Titled, "Bus driver playing Christian Music", the original poster says that her son told her that the school bus driver plays a Christian radio station very loud every day that includes Christian music as well as discussion of God, Jesus, and the Bible. The original poster is bothered by this because her family is not Christian. Because this bus is operated by the Fairfax County Public Schools system, she wonders if there is anything she can do about it. If there is one thing that I have learned from the posters who currently dominate DCUM, it is that Christian White males are the group that suffers the most prejudice in today's America. As such, many posters immediately react defensively, providing excuses or potential explanations for the bus driver's behavior. The original poster is told to teach her kid tolerance. The original poster is warned that if she complains and the driver is removed, drivers are hard to find. Other posters argue that listening to religious music or displaying religious symbols is common. Posters suggest that religious music is far better than the music to which young people listen these days which, posters contend, is full of offensive words. In contrast, other posters agree with the original poster that religious music is not appropriate in what should be a secular setting. Moreover, nobody is suggesting that if the driver doesn't play religious music that he should then play music that some posters find offensive. This actually highlights the main contradiction of the "tolerate the music" crowd. If the driver were playing offensive rap music, they would probably be among the first to complain. That is not to mention how they would likely react if the driver were playing Islamic prayers. Several posters recommend that the original poster report the driver to the school administration or school board. It is seriously hard to read a topic such as this and not conclude that a significant number of posters are functionally braindead. One poster, for instance, suggests that if the original poster doesn't want the bus driver to play Christian music, she should also support the removal of sexually explicit content from school libraries. First of all, there is a very active movement to remove such material, which barely exists in the libraries in the first place. Following this posters logic, the book banners should all support the original poster in opposing Christian music in the bus. However, I think we all know that the opposite is more likely to be true. Second, students are not forced to select sexually explicit books in the library. They may make that choice, but they don't have to. Students trapped in a bus have no such choice. Eventually, as was certain to happen, the discussion turned toward race. Resentful White posters repeatedly suggested that the original poster was engaging in prejudice against White people, despite there being no mention of the driver's race. The same posters argued that if the driver were Black, the thread's music critics would be coming to his defense. I don't know about that, but I suspect that if the driver is Black and played rap music, the posters making this allegation would not come to his defense.