Looks like the Supreme Court remains wholly indifferent to the amount of vitriol it routinely suffers from the increasingly extremist media, as evidenced by its recent agreement to hear arguments in favor of overturning the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision.
This decision effectively legalized affirmative action, or providing a greater opportunity for certain students to attend certain institutions over others, depending upon the color of their skin.
Kind of how Biden appoints all his Cabinet members.
Indeed, the center of the 2003 case focused on the University of Michigan Law School, which rejected some applicants with higher test scores and grades in favor of other applicants, all in the name of “diversity.”
However, the wording of this ruling leaves much to be desired, especially from a legal standpoint:
“The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for ‘substantial weight,’ but it does reaffirm the Law School’s commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers.”
So, in other words, the 2003 ruling basically said that without affirmative action, apparently large swathes of minority groups would no longer be eligible to attend universities.
Just let that one sit for a minute.
The ruling further reveals eyebrow-raising sentiments when it asserted that mandating diversity in universities, regardless of the differences in work ethic and academic performance, constitutes “a compelling state interest.”
Given the rabid rise of BLM just a few years later, such an interest appears “compelling” indeed.
Notably, conservative justices dissented, including William Hubbs Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.
The full text of the 2003 decision, which serves as the context for the upcoming Supreme Court case, can be read here.
However, the 2003 ruling also noted that affirmative action may not be necessary in 25 years, and 2022 constitutes a 19-year lapse since the Court has visited affirmative action.
Now, the Court is set to possibly overturn the frankly prejudiced procedure, in the purest sense of the word prejudice, anyway, and several individuals are not happy.
In remarks to Fox News digital, Danielle Holley, who Dean of Howard University Law School, raged that universities would be unable to consider “race” as an admissions factor, revealing just how reliant universities have truly become.
“For selective admission universities, it would mean that if the Supreme Court finds against Harvard or UNC, those universities could no longer consider race in any way in admissions,” Holly sniffed.
Well, yes, Ms. Holly, that is the general idea underlying the retraction of affirmative action.
Yvette Pappoe, who serves as an assistant law professor at the University of D.C, was even more forthright.
Raging that an overturn of affirmative action would result in “devastating consequences on people of color, minorities generally,” she proceeded to make a terribly unconvincing argument about how affirmative action is necessary to “remedy” discrimination in the past.
Regardless of the special privileges that can be received today.
“We absolutely still need race conscious admissions programs. The whole point of affirmative action was not to reward historically advantaged groups. The whole point was to remedy past discrimination, whether intentional or not, and that has not been remedied, whether we like to admit it or not,” Pappoe whined.
Well, Ms. Pappoe, antics by the thieving BLM, not to mention racism on all sides, would certainly preclude these issues.
“Banning such programs will harm students, it will harm schools, it will harm society in interrelated ways,” Pappoe continued indignantly, “it will not only deepen the existing racial disparities in higher education and other social institutions, it will disadvantage specifically Black candidates and other students of color in the admissions process. And then finally, it will fuel racist stereotypes about people of color, including and specifically Black women.”
Right. Anyone see any facts in the above statement? Because if any facts are there, they sure are elusive.
Especially relative to conservatives’ take.
Angela Morabito, who serves as spokesperson for the Defense of Freedom Institute, offered something the lefties didn’t: facts.
“It is painfully obvious from what Harvard and other elite institutions are doing is they are discriminating in their admissions process based on race. And under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for any institution receiving federal funding to do that. It’s just not right,” Morabito drawled.
Similarly, Edward Blum, the President of Students for Fair Admissions, also noted that affirmative action ironically undermines the Civil Rights movement.
“If the Supreme Court rules that race is unconstitutional, then we will go back to what the principles of what our civil rights movement is all about. And those principles are a student’s race and ethnicity shouldn’t be used to help him or harm him in gaining admissions to a college or university,” Murano asserted,
Winsome Sears, who serves as the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, also pointed out another inconvenient truth, one that falls squarely on the Democrats.
“Ultimately, history will prove us right, because we have tried race-based discrimination, and it doesn’t work. What this is about is educational opportunity. We have to ensure that all children have access to those opportunities, so they will be able, on their own, without race-based policies, to be afforded the ability to gain entry into these universities. That’s the issue, and the children don’t have it,” Sears noted.
That’s because woke teachers failed to return to work, alleging fears of the pandemic, though in truth most of them just would rather stay home and rant and rave over Trump online, all day long.
Any course discussions they do have would certainly lack any nuance or creativity, that’s for sure.
Tiffany Atkins, a law professor at the ironically named Elon Law School, complained that eliminating affirmative action would eliminate the “richness” of discussions.
“From my perspective as a law professor and a lawyer, this is important because it affects the students that I teach, the conversations that we have, the richness of the conversation in the classroom,” Atkins raged.
“Richness of conversation,” huh? Would that be the same type of conversation that inspires students to turn to violence in order to shut down any “dissent?”
The same students who are likely not going on to be doctors or lawyers, in spite of Atkins’s insistence that eliminating affirmative action will somehow have a negative impact on the alleged diversity of doctors and lawyers in the future.
As if someone wants a surgeon who is there due to their “identity,” rather than their actual skills.
Interestingly, the left seems to have no issue with the relative lack of diversity in the NBA and NFL.
Perhaps Musk summarized the importance of actual merit more effectively than leftists argued the merit of affirmative action.
“I strongly believe that all managers in a technical area must be technically excellent. Managers in software must write great software or it’s like being a cavalry captain who can’t ride a horse!” Musk asserted.
No kidding …
Author: Jane Jones
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
