- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Andre Drummond (Los Angeles Lakers) with a dunk vs the Miami Heat, 04/08/2021
Andre Drummond (Los Angeles Lakers) with a dunk vs the Miami Heat, 04/08/2021
Dennis Schroder (Los Angeles Lakers) with a deep 3 vs the Brooklyn Nets, 04/10/2021
Andre Drummond finished with a double double of 20 points and 11 rebounds as the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Brooklyn Nets 126-101 on Saturday in a battle between two teams lacking much of their star power.
Some states have attempted to allocate COVID relief funds on the basis of race. Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola have announced that they will penalize law firms that don’t use race to decide who will work on their matters. School boards from the state of Virginia to the city of Madison, Wis., have said that their teachers must abandon race-neutral approaches and focus on equal outcomes on things like evaluations and the imposition of discipline. The Biden administration’s most recent “relief” package hands out money to distressed farmers based on race. Such are the wages of the shift in “social justice” circles from equality of opportunity among the races (a rule of non-discrimination) to “equity.” Despite its growing popularity, however, equity remains a poor fit for the American legal system. This recent shift is more accurately described as a call for discrimination. It insists that those selecting others for things such as employment, college admission, contracts, and public and private benefits must choose by race so that members of different groups are “represented” in acceptable proportions. The theoretical basis for this approach is rooted in the belief that racial disparities speak for themselves. Ibram X. Kendi, perhaps the most prominent advocate of the new dispensation, writes that “racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large.” In this view, there is no need to identify some particular discriminatory act or policy that has resulted in a particular discriminatory episode: It’s racism all the way down. If all disparities are the result of racism, whether current or ancient, Kendi reasons, “the only remedy to resist racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.” Kendi writes that “the remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination” and “the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Thus, “equity” calls for discrimination across the board. The ideas, long present on the academic left, that “color-blindness” is a myth and “race-neutrality” perpetuates injustice have obtained increased purchase. But will such “antiracist” discrimination survive judicial scrutiny? Current law looks with disfavor on this type of “benign” discrimination. While the Supreme Court has permitted a limited and opaque use of race to achieve diversity in college admissions, other forms of racial preference must generally be justified by discrete and focused discriminatory acts, and the use of race must be closely tailored to the remediation of the direct impact of this particular discriminatory conduct. Group disparity, or even the fact of general societal discrimination, is not enough. To be sure, there have been justices — at times as many as four — who would endorse some form of “benign” discrimination to achieve something approximating “equity.” But although the context and the particular legal text that a plaintiff invokes will matter, our law, in addressing statutory and constitutional claims of discrimination, has not yet endorsed “anti-racist discrimination.” To the contrary, it has almost always seen guarantees of equal protection and non-discrimination as creating individual rights to equal treatment, not group rights to equal outcomes. Some may argue that the new idea of “equity” may find support in the existing concept of “disparate impact.” The more foundational concept of “disparate treatment” involves what most of us would regard as discrimination — a discrete and identifiable treatment of two similarly situated individuals differently because of race. While one might think that disparate treatment is precisely — and only — what the commands of non-discrimination found in the federal and state constitutions and civil-rights laws were intended to prohibit, courts have developed the concept of “disparate impact” to address circumstances in which outcomes differ by race but discriminatory treatment cannot be proven. Litigants have been fighting for decades over when disparate-impact analysis can be used and what precisely it means. It is generally unavailable in constitutional cases, but even in such cases, it often becomes a vehicle for “proving” discriminatory treatment and intent. In most formulations, disparate-impact analysis requires the identification of a specific practice — say, the requirement of a college degree for a particular position, or the use of standardized tests in college admissions — that has a “disparate” impact on different racial groups. Unless such practices can be found to meet some standard of justification (e.g., be shown to be a business necessity for an employer), an inference of discrimination can be found. Many critics have maintained that this principle effectively mandates equality of outcome, and often (but not always), that is its effect. Given the vagaries of litigation, it creates a powerful incentive to eliminate disparity. In addition, the need for a challenged practice to be justified may imply some obligation not to adopt even neutral practices that have a disparate impact without justification. But, without endorsing all the ways in which disparate-impact theory has been applied, the requirement of a specific practice with a direct, traceable, and current impact is applicable mainly to securing equality of opportunity for individuals or tightly defined classes of individuals subjected to a particular criterion, rather than large groups said to have faced societal discrimination. Contra Kendi, it is not racism all the way down. This understanding of disparate impact is broadly — if a bit uncomfortably — consistent with what has been the majority view of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has generally held that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and statutory prohibitions of discrimination create individual rights. A group has no standing to insist on a proportionate share of anything. No person of any race may be treated differently because of race, save for situations where such treatment is necessary to remediate discrete instances of discrimination. Race-based remedies cannot be justified by something as broad as “structural racism.” As Justice Scalia famously put it, from a constitutional perspective, there can be “no such thing as a creditor or debtor race” because that concept “is alien to the Constitution’s focus on the individual.” The concept of equity turns this on its head. It’s rooted in the notion of systemic racism, for which there is literally no definition other than a desire for equal outcomes. The Aspen Institute defines this “structural racism” as a “system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity.” It goes on to state that “in a racially equitable society, the distribution of society’s benefits and burdens would not be skewed by race.” In other words, structural or systemic racism is nothing more than racial disparity. Because something that can come from anything (institutional practices, cultural representations, etc.) need come from no particular thing, there is no need to identify specific discriminatory practices that could be halted. Group disparities must be made to disappear. In this view, there is a creditor and a debtor race, and individuals of the latter must pay those of the former — by being discriminated against to achieve racial balance — without regard to individual culpability or injury. Contrary to our traditional focus on the individual, the right to equity is a group right designed to remediate a group injury. While it finds a weak antecedent in the concept of disparate impact, any expanded application of equity would work a radical transformation of American law. It is unlikely that the current Supreme Court will transform disparate-impact analysis in this way, but changing legal doctrine is always a long game. Those who remain committed to a race-neutral society must understand the nature of the attack.
Umpire Joe West was awarded $500,000 plus interest on Monday after winning a defamation lawsuit against former major league player Paul Lo Duca. Judge John Kelley of Manhattan (N.Y.) Supreme Court rendered the decision. Lo Duca had said on "The Favorites" podcast on the Action Network in April 2019 that West had once agreed to give Lo Duca's New York Mets teammate Billy Wagner a bigger strike zone in exchange for use of the pitcher's vintage car.
McGregor called off his fight with Poirier after being called out for not making good on his donation to Poirier's foundation.
After a weekend at the Masters when PGA Tour professional Billy Horschel got more attention for his bare feet than his play at Augusta National, he apologized for his fiery behavior. Horschel, who stumbled to a 50th-place finish at Augusta, Ga., following a 4-over-par 76 on Sunday, referenced his behavior without mentioning a specific incident. "I apologize to Augusta National, the Members of the Club and to the patrons for any conduct that may have crossed the line," Horschel said in the second of consecutive apology posts at Twitter.
"Conor is as generous as it gets," Audie Attar said in response to McGregor not yet donating $500K to The Good Fight Foundation as promised.
Hideki Matsuyama faced his most serious challenge on the 16th tee at Augusta National. What he did next won him the Masters.
The Browns appear to be closing in on Jadeveon Clowney. Continuing a pursuit that began with a contract offer Clowney turned down last year, Cleveland remains interested in signing the free agent defensive end, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press. Clowney visited the Browns on March 24, and NFL Network reported on Monday that he'll return to Cleveland's headquarters Wednesday — a visit that could include a physical that may lead to a contract agreement.
Former two-weight UFC champion McGregor said earlier this month that a third fight was booked with Poirier, who became the first man to knock him out in January. McGregor knocked Poirier out in a featherweight contest in 2014. But McGregor was not happy when Poirier said the Irishman had not made good on a promise to donate to his charity.
Just weeks after the fight was announced, Conor McGregor is claiming that he is not fighting Dustin Poirier at UFC 264 on July 10. He made the comment in the midst of a Twitter spat between the two fighters. McGregor won the first meeting between the two when he was on the rise to UFC greatness. Poirier more recently won the rematch, setting up a blockbuster bout this summer. The bout could be in trouble after Poirier and McGregor went to battle on Twitter after Poirier called McGregor out for not following through on a $500,000 donation to his charity, The Good Fight Foundation. McGregor had promised the donation in the lead-up to their fight at UFC 257 in January. Poirier claims that McGregor's team stopped responding to his team's communications about the donation after he defeated McGregor at UFC 257 via second-round TKO stoppage. McGregor fired back, saying that Poirier's team never detailed how the money was to be directed. Dustin Poirier and Conor McGregor battle on Twitter https://twitter.com/DustinPoirier/status/1381388524163850243?s=20 https://twitter.com/DustinPoirier/status/1381481527457026048?s=20 This latest turn is in stark contrast to the weeks leading up to the fight at UFC 257. The two men were cordial and respectful of one another, each of course talking about how they expected to win the fight, but with little to no trash talk. The sparks began flying over the situation surrounding the donation to Poirier's foundation. It's unclear if McGregor was serious or simply caught up in the heat of the moment, but their exchange on Twitter led the Irishman to saying that the fight was off and that he would fight someone else on July 10. "You're ripped you inbred hillbilly. Why do you wink with your ears? You f---ing brain dead hillbilly. 500k with no plan in place. Ye hang tight. Fool. You must be new to money," McGregor wrote. "The fight is off btw (by the way). I'm going to fight someone else on the 10th. Good luck on your old contract kid." https://twitter.com/TheNotoriousMMA/status/1381624066105344000?s=20 Just a few minutes later, McGregor didn't exactly pull back the comment about not fighting Poirier, but seemed to be saying as much, as he threw out another comment about making him pay with his brain. "My team does their due diligence to make sure every donation meets the mark. My generosity is known. You will pay with your brain for this attempt at smearing my name," he said. UFC officials had not yet commented on the exchange at the time of publication. https://twitter.com/TheNotoriousMMA/status/1381626207670784002?s=20 TRENDING > Georges St-Pierre tells Joe Rogan he would have returned for Khabib
Shota Hayafuji took an extra second during a long-held caddy tradition to pay tribute to the legendary golf course.
The intro of "Texans 360" no longer features any major highlights of Deshaun Watson.
Marquette King hasn't punted in two full seasons.
Conor McGregor is irate at Dustin Poirier for going public with his lack of a donation and threated to call off their UFC 264 bout.
Even after trading for Sam Darnold, the Panthers say they're still looking at QBs.
A lingering knee injury prompted the longtime Patriot to call it a career.
A precise Justin Rose tamed a windy Augusta National to hold a four-shot lead after the first round of the Masters on Thursday while defending champion Dustin Johnson was among a number of top players who struggled in challenging conditions. Rose, twice a Masters runner-up, had done little to excite the spectators on hand as he was two over after seven holes, but went on a scorching run to card a seven-under-par 65 that marked his career low at Augusta National. That left the 40-year-old Englishman four shots clear of Japan's Hideki Matsuyama and American Brian Harman.
Who's Will Zalatoris, the rookie who reached the weekend tied for second place at the Masters?
Darren Till was a touch frustrated watching Marvin Vettori cruise to a victory at UFC on ABC 2.