The U.S. Supreme Court may finally end racism and sexism in college admissions, experts said, potentially overturning decades of “affirmative action” used to discriminate against males and people with less melanin. Professional race hustlers are going nuts over the prospect.
The case at issue involves Harvard and the University of North Carolina, both institutions that receive unfathomable amounts of public funding to provide what passes for “education.” Lawyers and justices arguing in favor of race discrimination repeatedly implied that people of African or Latin American heritage were incapable of competing on a level playing field against Americans of European or Asian ancestry.
The universities were sued by mostly Asian-American victims represented by a conservative organization known as Students of Fair Admissions, which argued that discriminating against applicants based on their race was a violation of the law. The plaintiffs were represented by two lawyers who previously served as clerks for Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s most constitutionalist member.
Several of the more conservative-leaning justices sounded highly skeptical of racist and sexist admissions policies, repeatedly asking the lawyers defending affirmative action if and when such policies would ever come to an end.
“If you don’t have a number, and I understand why it’s difficult,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “but if you don’t have something measurable, it’s going to be very hard for this court.” A ruling from two decades ago mentioned the possibility of 25 years, but the government’s attorney was unwilling to go on record with a new date.
Chief Justice John Roberts also sounded unimpressed. “Your position is that race matters because it’s necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want,” Roberts said. “It’s not going to stop mattering at some particular point, you’re always going to have to look at race because you say race matters to give us the necessary diversity.”
Justice Thomas, who happens to be of African heritage, went on record against racism in admissions in the Grutter case two decades ago that remains the precedent. “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,” he wrote.
In the arguments for this case, he slammed the term “diversity,” saying he did not “have a clue what it means” despite constantly hearing it. Ironically, he compared the pro-affirmative action team’s arguments for racism in admissions to similar arguments made by segregationists decades ago.
Far-left race-monger Ketanji Brown Jackson, who publicly stated during her SCOTUS confirmation hearings that she could not define “woman” because she was not a biologist, was an ardent defender of racial preferences in admissions throughout the hearings. She vowed during her Senate confirmation hearings to recuse herself from this case, but apparently lied under oath.
It was not immediately clear whether or how many times the fringe left-wing jurist was promoted over somebody more qualified due to affirmative-action policies. But supporters of such policies regularly point to her as an example of why racial and sex discrimination are supposedly needed and how they can be successful.
Legal analysts who followed the SCOTUS hearing suggested it was almost certain that the court would at least rein in race- and sex-linked admissions policies and affirmative action generally. The real question, court watchers said, was how far the ruling would go in ending racial and sex discrimination in college admissions.
Of course, in a free country, colleges and any other non-governmental institutions would be free to set any criteria they like for admissions, including racist “diversity” ideas that discriminate against males and descendants of Europeans and Asians. But in a free country, those institutions would not depend on taxpayer funds for survival.
In colleges and universities that continue looting the public to fund what passes as “education,” it is imperative that racist and sexist admissions policies be quashed. It is terrible for anyone, including those supposedly benefiting from it. If “woke” racist administrators want to continue penalizing or promoting people for their race and their sex, they should forfeit all public money — period.
In any case, under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government should not be involved in education at all. Getting the government out of “education” would solve these issues overnight.
