DOCSLIB.ORG

Tea Party Fairness: How the Idea of Proportional Justice Explains the Right-Wing Populism of the Obama Era

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tea Party Fairness: How the Idea of Proportional Justice Explains the Right-Wing Populism of the Obama Era UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Tea Party Fairness: How the Idea of Proportional Justice Explains the Right-Wing Populism of the Obama Era A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Emily Elisabeth Ekins 2015 ©Copyright by Emily Elisabeth Ekins 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Tea Party Fairness: How the Idea of Proportional Justice Explains the Right-Wing Populism of the Obama Era by Emily Elisabeth Ekins Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2015 Professor John Zaller, Chair In this dissertation I argue that the main impulse underlying the tea party movement is a conviction that activist government helps the undeserving at the expense of the truly productive members of society. I say main impulse because racial resentment and other illiberal attitudes also contribute to tea party involvement. But illiberal motives do not play the dominant role that much existing research suggests. When tests are properly conducted, preference for limited government is the strongest and most consistent predictor of tea party support. Further, I show that the movement catalyzed as a protest against the “bailouts” of undeserving Wall Street banks, other financial institutions, and automakers in 2008, before it acquired the famous tea party moniker from journalist Rick Santelli in February 2009. With repeated fast-paced government interventions in response to the Great Recession and with ii increasing publicity of the tea party brand early in the administration of President Barack Obama, the movement grew into a heterogeneous coalition, consisting of three distinct groups. I find the largest of these subgroups has a strongly libertarian flavor and scarcely a whiff of racial animus. Social conservatives comprise another significant group, with strong preferences for limited government and moral traditionalism, and some racially conservative attitudes. Racial conservatives are a substantial subgroup too, but my analysis shows that they are no less motivated by the issue of limited government than others in the movement. These groups are different from one another but came together in the same movement largely because they shared a belief that the federal government had violated basic fairness in its response to difficult economic times. I go on to argue that tea partiers’ preference for limited government is itself primarily driven by a “reap what you sow” conception of economic justice, rather than, as much tea party rhetoric proclaims, a desire for individual liberty. In the psychological literature on fairness, this conception is called “proportional justice”—the idea that everyone should be rewarded in strict proportion to their achievements and failings, and that government should not shield people from the consequences of their decisions. In sum, I contend the tea party impulse is at its core a demand for what its members see as basic economic fairness. iii The dissertation of Emily Elisabeth Ekins is approved. Kathleen Bawn Jonathan Haidt Lynn Vavreck Lewis John Zaller, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2015 iv To Justin and my parents v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................................................................................vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................ix Abbreviations .............................................................................................................xi Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................xii Vita .............................................................................................................................xv Preface ........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: What the Tea Party is, What it Wants, and Why it Matters .....................5 Chapter 2: In the Beginning, There Was TARP ........................................................30 Chapter 3: The Tea Party Coalition: Some Racial Resentment, Lots of Economic Resentment .............................78 Chapter 4: The Tea Party In Its Own Words .............................................................114 Chapter 5: The Tea Party Divide: Quantifying the Activists .....................................168 Chapter 6: Deconstructing Fiscal Conservatism: Proportionality, Liberty, Individualism, and Race .........................................200 Concluding Thoughts .................................................................................................250 Appendices .................................................................................................................258 Bibliography ..............................................................................................................276 vi LIST OF TABLES 2.1 TARP-Related Votes Predicting Republican Congressperson’s Leaving the House by 2010 ...............................................................42 2.2 TARP-Related Votes Predicting Democratic Congressperson’s Leaving the House by 2010 ...............................................................42 2.3 Knowledge About TARP: By Tea Party Support ....................................44 2.4 TARP Related Votes Predicting Joining Tea Party Congressional Caucus .......................................................45 2.5 Predicting Opposition to TARP: Regressions on Measures of Racial Resentment and Preference For Limited Government ...................................................................50 3.1 Beliefs about Entitlements and Entitlement Reform by Tea Party Support .........................................................................84 3.2 Predicting Tea Party Support: Regressions on Measures of Preferences for Limited Government, Racial Attitudes, and Immigration Anxiety (CBS/NYT) ..................91 3.3 Predicting Tea Party Support: Regressions on Measures of Preference for Limited Government, Racial Attitudes, and Immigration Anxiety (ANES EGSS 2) ...........96 3.4 Predicting Tea Party Subgroups: Regressions on Measures of Preference for Limited Government and Racial Attitudes (CBS/NYT) ......................................................100 3.5 Tea Party Clusters: Demographics, Political Identification Tea Party Engagement (CBS/NYT) ...................................................104 3.6 Political Beliefs Across Tea Party Clusters and Non-Tea Party Groups (CBS/NYT) ...................................................106 3.7 Predicting Tea Party Cluster Membership: Regressions on Measures of Limited Govt Preferences and Racial Attitudes (CBS/NYT) ......................................................111 4.1 Shares of Tea Party Protest Signs by Category at the 9/12 2010 Tea Party March on Washington D.C. ....................120 vii 5.1 Tea Party Activist Demographics ............................................................182 5.2 Tea Party Activists’ Ranked Issue Concerns ...........................................187 5.3 Top Ranked Issue Concerns of Activist Tea Party Clusters ....................195 5.4 Predicting Tea Party Cluster Membership Among DC Activists: Regressions on Economic, Social, and Foreign Policy Issue Concern Indices ................................................197 6.1 Endorsement of Items Measuring Moral Foundations Tea Party Supporters and Non-Supporters ........................................211 6.2 Mean Endorsement of Moral Foundations Among Tea Party Social Conservatives And Tea Party Libertarians ................................................................217 6.3 Comparison of MFQ Cluster 1: Tea Party Social Conservatives and MFQ Cluster 2: Tea Party Libertarians (Clustering Method 2) ........................................................................221 6.4 Predicting Tea Party Support, Tea Party Who Desire Small Govt, and Tea Party Who Desire Active Govt: Regressions on Moral Foundations ....................................................227 6.5 Endorsements of Proportionality and Economic Individualism: Comparison of Tea Party Supporters and Non-Supporters ................233 6.6 Factor Loadings of Proportionality and Standard Individualism Items ............................................................236 6.7 Predicting Support for Limited Government: Regressions on Measures of Proportionality and Individualism .......238 6.8 Predicting Tea Party Support: Regressions on Measures of Principled Conservatism and Racial Attitudes ...........................................................................242 6.9a Predicting Tea Party Support for Limited Government: Regressions on Measures of Principled Conservatism And Racial Attitudes ..........................................................................245 6.9b Predicting Tea Party Support for Active Government: Regressions on Measures of Principled Conservatism and Racial Attitudes ...........................................................................246 viii LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Public Reaction to TARP: By Partisanship and Tea Party Support .........44 2.2 Google Trends for Search Term: Socialism .............................................47 2.3 Number of Mentions of “Socialism” in New York Times 2005-2013 ...............................................................48 3.1 Predicted Probability of Tea Party
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood: Who They Are and How American News Media Gets It Wrong
    Jeremy Abrams The Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood: Who they are and How American News Media Gets it Wrong Jeremy Abrams 1 Table of Content I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 II. Defining Political Parties and their Role in Democracies ................................................................. 2 A. Generally ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Structurally .................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. How the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood Fit the Mold ................................................. 4 III. Brief Descriptions of the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood ............................................. 4 A. The Tea Party ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1. History ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. The System in Which it Operates ..................................................................................................... 9 3. Official Status ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Session from Hell by Arnold Hamilton These Are the Raw Numbers: the Lawmakers Consider Sacrosanct: Cor- Legislature’S 101 House Members Porate Welfare
    $2.50 25,000 Blue Chip Readers VOL. 42, NO. 2 An Independent Journal of Commentary JANUARY 25, 2010 Wingnuts And Corporatists Session From Hell By Arnold Hamilton These are the raw numbers: The lawmakers consider sacrosanct: cor- Legislature’s 101 House members porate welfare. and 48 senators filed 2,235 bills and The state has created a cornucopia 59 resolutions in advance of the 2010 of tax exemptions – including sales session that opens Feb. 1. taxes on newspapers – that benefit Toss in the 1,051 bills and 86 res- the supposedly free-market Chamber olutions left over from last year and crowd. When GOP Sen. Mike Mazzei lawmakers could take up as many as of Tulsa tried to repeal them and start 3,431 measures this year – or one for over, he discovered neither Republi- just about every little Oklahoma town cans nor Democrats were much inter- the size of Medford or Fairland, Wister ested in disappointing wealthy busi- or Hydro. ness interests and deep-pocketed As impressive – or depressing – as campaign donors. the sheer magnitude of legislative Don’t be surprised if the GOP lead- creativity may be, there’s really only ership targets education, despite lip one number that is important to know service to the contrary. The corporat- heading into this session: 1.3 billion. ists in charge are not beyond using That’s the size of the projected hole the crisis to attempt to bring their – in dollars – in the 2010-11 budget, arch-enemies, the state’s teachers down from a $7.1 billion spending unions, to their knees.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Right-Wing Media Enablers of Anti-Islam Propaganda
    Chapter 4 The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda Spreading anti-Muslim hate in America depends on a well-developed right-wing media echo chamber to amplify a few marginal voices. The think tank misinforma- tion experts and grassroots and religious-right organizations profiled in this report boast a symbiotic relationship with a loosely aligned, ideologically-akin group of right-wing blogs, magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and television news shows to spread their anti-Islam messages and myths. The media outlets, in turn, give members of this network the exposure needed to amplify their message, reach larger audiences, drive fundraising numbers, and grow their membership base. Some well-established conservative media outlets are a key part of this echo cham- ber, mixing coverage of alarmist threats posed by the mere existence of Muslims in America with other news stories. Chief among the media partners are the Fox News empire,1 the influential conservative magazine National Review and its website,2 a host of right-wing radio hosts, The Washington Times newspaper and website,3 and the Christian Broadcasting Network and website.4 They tout Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, and others as experts, and invite supposedly moderate Muslim and Arabs to endorse bigoted views. In so doing, these media organizations amplify harm- ful, anti-Muslim views to wide audiences. (See box on page 86) In this chapter we profile some of the right-wing media enablers, beginning with the websites, then hate radio, then the television outlets. The websites A network of right-wing websites and blogs are frequently the primary movers of anti-Muslim messages and myths.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
    The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: a Narrative- Based Analysis of His Supporters and of the Candidate Himself Mitchell A
    University of Puget Sound Sound Ideas Summer Research Summer 2016 Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: A narrative- based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself Mitchell A. Carlson 7886304 University of Puget Sound, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Carlson, Mitchell A. 7886304, "Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: A narrative-based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself" (2016). Summer Research. Paper 271. http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research/271 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Sound Ideas. It has been accepted for inclusion in Summer Research by an authorized administrator of Sound Ideas. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Mitchell Carlson Professor Robin Dale Jacobson 8/24/16 Who Supports Donald J. Trump? A narrative-based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself Introduction: The Voice of the People? “My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: “I’m With Her.” I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads: ‘I’m with you—the American people.’ I am your voice.” So said Donald J. Trump, Republican presidential nominee and billionaire real estate mogul, in his speech echoing Richard Nixon’s own convention speech centered on law-and-order in 1968.1 2 Introduced by his daughter Ivanka, Trump claimed at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio that he—and he alone—is the voice of the people.
    [Show full text]
  • Cato Institute As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners ______
    No. 17-1702 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION, DANIEL COUGHLIN, JEANETTE SANTIAGO, CORY BRYCE, Petitioners, v. DEEDEE HALLECK, JESUS PAPOLETO MELENDEZ, Respondents. ___________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ___________________ BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ___________________ ILYA SHAPIRO DAVID DEBOLD TREVOR BURRUS Counsel of Record CATO INSTITUTE GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1000 Mass. Ave., NW. 1050 Conn. Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500 [email protected] VINCE EISINGER JACOB ARBER GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for Amicus Curiae i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court’s state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional li- ability. 2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding— contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits—that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity’s board or operations. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4 I. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION ARE RIPE FOR—AND IN NEED OF—RESOLUTION .............................4 A. This Case Properly Presents the Question Left Undecided in Denver Area ........................................................4 B. The Second Circuit Has Created a Spurious and Untenable Distinction Between Leased Access Channels and Public Access Channels ..................7 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups to Watch
    Groups to watch There is no question that conservative foundations and think tanks will put an increased emphasis on attacking public sector unions and public schools after the Supreme Court makes its decision in the Janus v. AFSCME case. They are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars across the nation to elect anti-labor and anti-public education candidates and to produce so-called "research," television ads and mailings to bash unions. The Koch network alone plans to spend $400 million this year.1 Virtually all of these organizations aren't required to report their donors. These groups try to bill themselves as pro-worker – they are not. They want to privatize our public schools, lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, block access to health care, cut pensions, suppress voters, gerrymander and weaken the political power of unions. The tentacles of all of these group are already reaching into Minnesota, advocating for vouchers, more charter schools, defined-contribution pensions and the destruction of public employee unions. State Policy N etwork The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of so-called “think tanks” that push a right-wing agenda in every state across the country, all while reporting little or no lobbying activities. The $80 million empire2 works to rig the system against working families by pushing for privatizing public schools, blocking expanded access to health care, lowering taxes for corporations and the very wealthy and undermining workers’ rights and unions. SPN and many of its affiliates are members of the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where corporate lobbyists and special interest group representatives vote as equals with state lawmakers behind closed doors on “model” legislation that in many cases ends up benefiting the corporations’ bottom line.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2, 2018 the Honorable Henry J. Kerner Special Counsel
    November 2, 2018 The Honorable Henry J. Kerner Special Counsel Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 Re: Violation of the Hatch Act by Seema Verma Dear Special Counsel Kerner: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) respectfully requests that the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) investigate whether Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), violated the Hatch Act by using an official government social media account to advocate against a political party and by participating in her official capacity in a video opinion piece by former Trump campaign senior advisor Boris Epshteyn. Factual Background The Senate confirmed Ms. Verma for her current position on March 13, 2017.1 The official CMS website explains that “[a]s Administrator, Ms. Verma oversees a $1 trillion budget, 26% of the total federal budget, and administers healthcare programs for more than 130 million Americans every day.”2 In that capacity, Ms. Verma maintains an official government social media account on Twitter, with the handle Administrator Seema Verma, @SeemaCMS.3 Her account identifies her by the following biographical details: “Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Mother and Wife. Proud alum of @UofMaryland and @JohnsHopkins Univ.”4 The CMS agency Twitter account, @CMSGov, frequently retweets her postings from her official account.5 On the afternoon of October 31, 2018, Ms. Verma tweeted a number of political messages transparently designed to influence the upcoming midterm elections. One such message was Ms. Verma’s retweet of a tweet by former Trump campaign senior advisor Boris Epshteyn attacking the Democratic party: “.@SeemaCMS believes that the Democrat-backed 1 See CMS (website), Administrator, https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/leadership/ (last viewed Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement
    Capitol Insurrection At Center Of Conservative Movement: At Least 43 Governors, Senators And Members Of Congress Have Ties To Groups That Planned January 6th Rally And Riots. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, a rally in support of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election “turned deadly” when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s urging. Even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely broke with Trump, has explicitly said, “the mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.” These “other powerful people” include a vast array of conservative officials and Trump allies who perpetuated false claims of fraud in the 2020 election after enjoying critical support from the groups that fueled the Capitol riot. In fact, at least 43 current Governors or elected federal office holders have direct ties to the groups that helped plan the January 6th rally, along with at least 15 members of Donald Trump’s former administration. The links that these Trump-allied officials have to these groups are: Turning Point Action, an arm of right-wing Turning Point USA, claimed to send “80+ buses full of patriots” to the rally that led to the Capitol riot, claiming the event would be one of the most “consequential” in U.S. history. • The group spent over $1.5 million supporting Trump and his Georgia senate allies who claimed the election was fraudulent and supported efforts to overturn it. • The organization hosted Trump at an event where he claimed Democrats were trying to “rig the election,” which he said would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” • At a Turning Point USA event, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender, Identity Framing, and the Rhetoric of the Kill in Conservative Hate Mail
    Communication, Culture & Critique ISSN 1753-9129 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Foiling the Intellectuals: Gender, Identity Framing, and the Rhetoric of the Kill in Conservative Hate Mail Dana L. Cloud Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA This article introduces the concept of identity framing by foil. Characteristics of this communicative mechanism are drawn from analysis of my personal archive of conservative hate mail. I identify 3 key adversarial identity frames attributed to me in the correspondence: elitist intellectual, national traitor, and gender traitor. These identity frames serve as foils against which the authors’ letters articulate identities as real men and patriots. These examples demonstrate how foiling one’s adversary relies on the power of naming; applies tremendous pressure to the target through identification and invocation of vulnerabilities; and employs tone and verbal aggression in what Burke identified as ‘‘the kill’’: the definition of self through the symbolic purgation and/or negation of another. doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2009.01048.x I was deluged with so much hate mail, but none of it was political ....It was like, ‘‘Gook, chink, cunt. Go back to your country, go back to your country where you came from, you fat pig. Go back to your country you fat pig, you fat dyke. Go back to your country, fat dyke. Fat dyke fat dyke fat dyke—Jesus saves.’’—Margaret Cho, ‘‘Hate Mail From Bush Supporters’’ (2004) My question to you. If you was [sic] a professor in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Palestinian university or even in Russia. etc. How long do you think you would last as a living person regarding your anti government rhetoric in those countries? We have a saying referring to people like you.
    [Show full text]
  • Race Ipsa Loquitur
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2019 Race Ipsa Loquitur Girardeau A. Spann Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2160 2018 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1025. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Law and Race Commons, and the Law and Society Commons RACE IPSA LOQUITUR Girardeau A. Spann* 2018 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1025 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1025 I. DISCRIMINATION .................................................................... 1030 A. Then ............................................................................... 1030 B. Now ............................................................................... 1034 1. Money ...................................................................... 1036 2. Education ................................................................ 1039 3. Employment ............................................................. 1041 4. Health ...................................................................... 1043 5. Housing ................................................................... 1046 6. Voting ...................................................................... 1049 7. Criminal Justice .....................................................
    [Show full text]