Everyone should have access

[trflgrl]

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (No. 7811)
Argued: October 12, 1977
Decided: June 28, 1978

I don't understand the connection: how are racial quotas/affirmative action parallel to private or public entities choosing to provide a variety of hygiene products, whether through direct taxes/fees to patrons or through internal budgeting?

 

[dpmulvey]

The initial Bakke argument was, minorities were able to compete for 100% of all available slots in med school while he (or all non minorities) was only able to compete for 100% minus "X". "X" being those seats not set aside for minorities. Monies were set aside for the use of an exclusive group at the expense of another group. Whenever that happens, whatever the circumstances, a discriminatory act takes place.

If the government provides the commodity called tampons for all, what about those who need "Depends" due to incontinence problems.

In that this is a boating site and to paraphrase an old saying......

'The natural progress of things is for the government to be the stand on vessel and for liberty to give way.' The end result is not pretty.

 

[FootballFan]

...

 

[FootballFan]

WHUPS!!!!!!

I meant to post the above on the thread Mike had about his adventures at night with a Sailboat. Sorry about that.

Mark

 

[trflgrl]

I’d counter that your own argument is flawed, as you’ve tied the Bakke ruling to the current scenario in part rather than in whole.

"Monies were set aside for the use of an exclusive group at the expense of another group. Whenever that happens, whatever the circumstances, a discriminatory act takes place."

People who menstruate are “an exclusive group,” so providing menstrual supplies to them is a discriminatory act against people who don’t?

I disagree, and think the Supreme Court would, as well, because of the second clause: “at the expense of another group.” Although my personal research is by no means exhaustive, I’ve been tuned in to questions like this for a while. I’ve found no accounts of “universal” provisions being reduced or stopped to make way for such a practice, so no evidence of denial of access/services or other significant harm to non-menstruating patrons of or visitors to public or private entities who do this. The Brown case certainly has this angle covered, with the organization’s intent solely to add hygiene products, as well as place them in all restrooms. If a non-menstruating person wants to use some, there’s nothing stopping him/her/them! (And if a non-menstruating person feels harmed in some way by the mere presence of such supplies, I think OllieC and GFC have a couple of appropriate terms ready.)

The Court found a clear denial of access/services in the Bakke case, specifically in the quota methodology the university had used to support affirmative action, but not in the concept of affirmative action itself.


“If the government provides the commodity called tampons for all, what about those who need "Depends" due to incontinence problems.”

First, I haven’t suggested the government mandate free menstrual products for all. I did submit an article that discusses broader context (including changing taxation guidelines), but proper discussion would require either a flotilla style gathering with plenty of adult beverages (preferably with a few more X chromosomes than current company), or a whole new thread....and I'm pretty sure it's not cold enough yet in most regions for you all to tolerate another such diversion!

Second, the comparison is another misfire: menstruation is a properly occurring bodily function, whereas incontinence is a definable medical condition outside of properly occurring urination/defecation.

 

[dpmulvey]

To: trflgrl.

I'm on my second glass of wine. I'll agree the discussion requires a flotilla w/ adult beverages. More to follow.

I'm so sure of my hand though, I'll show a couple of cards. I was born and raised in RI. This is amateur hour for Brown. This student's cause is lining the bottom of bird cages statewide. Rhode Islanders are more concerned with bitching about high taxes, The Green Monster when it was great, the Pats landing at PVD instead of BOS, and of course, the almighty senior citizen discount.

Tampons! Pfffffttt!