Court’s right to end racialized voting, the ‘wasted potential’ lie and other commentary

Liberal: Court’s Right To End Racialized Voting

“There were a hundred years of racial segregation after the Emancipation,” observes Joe Klein at Sanity Clause, until the “right to vote was established.” But now, 60 years after the Voting Rights Act, “a law enacted to combat racism became a law that sustained racialism,” though “wholesale discrimination against black voters no longer exists in this country.” The Supreme Court’s “decision to severely limit racial gerrymandering” is thus “an actual exercise in anti-racism.” Democrats can’t “explain why distinctions should still be made according to race,” aside from the “pragmatic politics” argument. In fact, it’s no bad thing for black elected officials to “have to gain the approval of some white voters to retain their seats,” and “very much, vice versa.”

Conservative: The ‘Wasted Potential’ Lie

“A new trend is spreading across TikTok and Instagram, and young women are vulnerable to its feminist messaging,” warns Liana Graham at The Federalist. In “these social media videos,” women are told that “to fear wasting their potential” — and “marrying young, settling down, living within your means, having children, and raising them yourself at home” are examples of “wasted potential.” Feminism’s “having it all” myth “is sold as regret-free,” though “it carries real opportunity costs for the women who follow it.” “Regret,” “anxiety and depression” are the results. As a backlash, “an emerging generation” of women “are attracted to tradwife content” extolling “traditional gender roles.” “Choosing early marriage and family may mean” less travel, “less disposable income” and fewer degrees — but settling down offers something “more enduring: love.” “Feminism sold us independence; love requires mutual dependence.”

Climate beat: Stop the Psuedo-Science

“The scientific journal Nature in December retracted one of the most influential climate economics papers of the past decades” that was used “by central banks and governments to justify aggressive climate policies,” marvels Roger Pielke Jr. at The Wall Street Journal. This retraction “isn’t a one-off”: “It revealed a crack that runs much deeper into the foundation of climate research.” A University of Wyoming paper revealed that researchers can’t “actually measure how climate affects the economy” based on “the historical record.” Debunked and “outdated scenarios persist” in an academic culture where researchers are pushed “to publish headline-grabbing results, and a climate advocacy ecosystem built on apocalyptic warnings.” When scientists defend flawed research, they “erode the public trust they need to solve the world’s most challenging problems.”

Fed watch: Say Goodbye Already, Jay

Federal Reserve boss Jay Powell “is not going off quietly,” sighs Lawrence Kudlow at The New York Sun. His term as chairman ends May 15, but he’s staying on as a board member until he’s sure the Justice Department’s probe of him is truly over. But “you can’t have two chief executives,” and the Senate will confirm a new chairman, Kevin Warsh, soon. Powell’s tenure was “undistinguished,” featuring the “worst” inflation record in 40-plus years and “unimpressive” growth. “The good news”: “Warsh understands the positives of low tax rates and deregulation” and how they restrain inflation by fueling productivity and lowering labor costs. He’ll refocus the central bank on monetary policy and avoid politics. Whether he’ll give Powell a parking spot “remains to be seen.”

From the right: UCLA Law vs. Free Speech

UCLA School of Law failed “to hold students accountable for disrupting a recent Federalist Society event,” and doesn’t even “appear interested in holding the protesters accountable,” fumes Jonathan Turley on his Substack. Instead, the school “threatened the Federalist Society that it could face discipline if it identifies any of the students who disrupted the event.” This “surreal position” has UCLA refusing to “punish the students responsible” for “disrupting and effectively silencing” a speaker, violating its free-speech policies, while forbidding witnesses from publicly relating who the disrupters were. The protesters fear the “consequences” of their “unprofessional and uncivil” conduct, so the university is imposing “coercive censorship” to protect them.

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board