Trump’s ‘Black Jobs’ Remark Triggers Viral Conversation on Social Media – Dallas Weekly

Earlier this week, the world witnessed, well, whatever that was that took place between President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump, under the guise of the first Presidential Debate of the 2024 election, proudly brought to viewers by America the Ghetto. Ninety minutes of lies that went unchecked, incoherent sentences that still haven’t been translated, and far too much information shared about golf handicaps. 

More entertaining though was a string of comments that triggered a new viral conversation on social media: Trump’s rant about immigration, warning the masses that “they’re taking Black jobs now.” Hilariously, Black and Latino commentators took to the internet to question what “Black jobs” were exactly, and joke about the idea that Latino workers would come after the jobs that Blacks would now need to protect. But what seemed like a random, and expected Trump rant may have actually been more sinister as politicians have used this old scheme for decades. 

Remember back in 2017-ish, when Black Twitter took to Summer Walker’s (sue me, I’m a fan)  internet to post, with just the slightest of flex, photos of themselves receiving degrees from some of the nation’s most prominent institutions, complete with the hashtag #StayMadAbby? 

The phrase, “Stay mad Abby” had originated from a 2016 decided Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas. While “stay mad” was sarcastic response to the lawsuit and the arguments behind it, “Abby” referred to Abigail Fisher, the white student who’d been recruited, manipulated and used (it’s giving pimp, if we’re being honest) by Edward Blum, a conservative litigant known for his opposition to affirmative action policies in higher education and other diversity programs based on race and ethnicity, to sue the University of Texas at Austin because she was rejected in 2008.

The lawsuit challenged the affirmative action program at the University of Texas, claiming it discriminated against white students like Abby – who felt entitled to a spot at the university because of her “legacy” status – in favor of minority applicants.

The case actually went to the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the court ruled in favor of Fisher, but in a limited way. The court didn’t outlaw affirmative action entirely, but sent the case back to lower courts, asking them to review whether UT Austin’s admissions process met the standards for considering race as a factor. Not satisfied, Abby Fisher and Edward Blum marched back to the steps of SCOTUS, and in 2016, the Supreme Court reviewed the case again, this time upholding UT Austin’s admissions process. The court found that UT had a compelling interest in achieving diversity and that its program used race in a narrowly tailored way to achieve that goal.

Blum and Fisher didn’t win in the way they wanted, but the precedent set by the Fisher v. University of Texas cases established was key. While they didn’t eliminate affirmative action, they did set a high bar for universities to meet when defending their race-conscious admissions programs and came with a conservative dissent from several justices. After taking an L in the highest court in the land, Blum, whose life work seems to be to make sure Black people can’t have anything nice, went back to the drawing board, ultimately realizing that he had an optics issue. 

First, Abigail Fisher’s academic qualifications, while good, were not exceptional compared to the typical students admitted to UT Austin. Fisher’s scores included a GPA of 3.59 (adjusted to a 4.0 scale) and an SAT score of 1180 (out of 1600). At the time, the average SAT score for incoming class (around 2008) was 1511 (out of 2400, converted to 1100 on the 1600 scale), with the 25th percentile SAT score averaging 1120 and the 75th percentile SAT score averaging 1370. Long story short, Fisher’s SAT score fell near the average for admitted students at the time, though slightly lower, and her 3.59 GPA was good but not outstanding. UT Austin stated that they’d had an holistic admissions process, considering factors beyond test scores and GPA, such as extracurricular activities, essays, and leadership potential. Fisher’s application may have been lacking in these areas compared to other admitted students. 

Next, there was the issue of Abigail Fisher being, well, white – a white legacy of UT Austin, who’d publicly made comments alluding that her status as such should guarantee her admission. For some, Abigail Fisher became a symbol for affirmative action as reverse discrimination, overshadowing the nuances of her application and the broader goals of affirmative action programs, while others, like Edward Blum, knew that Abigail’s whiteness conjured feelings of guilt for Americans, who’d watched what could easily be considered a “whiny white woman” making age-old complaints about “Black privilege”. Either way, it just didn’t look good. 

But won’t He (and I use “He” very loosely, here) send a ram in the bush? Enter Asian Ameicans, the country’s “model minority.” The “model minority” stereotype portrays Asian Americans as universally successful, hardworking, and unburdened by racial prejudice. And while it may seem positive on the surface, it implies that other minorities, particularly Black Americans, are lagging behind due to their own shortcomings. 

When Asian American students signed on with Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an organization that claims to represent all students disadvantaged by affirmative action, founded and led, of course, by Edward Blum himself, Blum knew he’d fixed his optics issue. Because while a young white woman crying about injustice at the hands of Black Americans, was well, typical, another, seeming unproblematic, minority claiming injustice was, well, perfection. 

Blum officially had the right equation: a model minority (with a longstanding interest in ensuring fair access to Ivy League schools that are seen as the pinnacle of American higher education) plus the very American uncurrent of anti-Blackness (often adopted by other minorities as a way of assimilation) equals what Americans would see, on the surface, as a fair fight between two disenfranchised groups. 

The new lawsuits specifically focused on admissions data suggesting that Asian American applicants faced higher hurdles for admission compared to other racial groups at these universities. This fueled the narrative that affirmative action unfairly disadvantaged Asian Americans in favor of other minority groups, namely Black Americans. 

Some Asian Americans supported the lawsuits, feeling affirmative action placed an unfair burden on their applications and limited their chances of admission. Others opposed, viewing affirmative action as a necessary tool to address past discrimination and promote diversity on campuses. They argued that the lawsuits were being used to dismantle affirmative action altogether, potentially hurting other minority groups more.

By 2023, where with a more conservative majority on the court, the landscape had shifted. On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions practices across the nation. The landmark cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina challenged the legality of race-conscious admissions programs at these institutions. 

Edward Blum and the conservative, anti-woke, anti-DEI, anti-anything that would create any sliver of equity for Black Americans faction had won using the age-old tactic of pitting minorities against one another. This tactic, often deliberate, is used to undermine collective progress and weaken the bargaining power of marginalized communities.

We see it, time and time again, with politicians leveraging it more recently to push hardline immigration policy. Knowing that limited resources and opportunities can exacerbate this division, politicians may frame social programs as a “zero-sum game,” where gains for one group come at the expense of another. This can lead to unnecessary competition for basic human-rights and distract from the root cause – a system that doesn’t provide enough resources for all marginalized groups to thrive.

Historically, those in power have exploited these divisions to weaken movements for social justice. For example, and one that was at the center of Trump’s “Black jobs” comments but in reverse, some immigration policies have pitted immigrant communities against Black Americans for jobs. This tactic allows them to maintain the status quo and avoid addressing systemic issues like racial and economic inequality.

But social media and an ever increasing collective American sense of humor, driven by the absolute fiasco that has become U.S. politics, is allowing the masses to build bridges rather than walls. Minority groups are beginning to build coalitions across racial and ethnic lines, recognizing the common struggle against discrimination empowers all communities.

Young people who are becoming more civically engaged are exposing the dangers of the model minority myth and anti-Blackness, highlighting the shared experiences of racism and marginalization to foster empathy and understanding. By recognizing these tactics and working together, minorities can overcome the forces that divide them. A united front is far more powerful than a fractured one. Only then can true progress towards a more just and equitable society be achieved. But still, until we achieve that, how, exactly, does one apply for a “Black job”? Asking for a friend.

Related