In the age of “self-identification,” there is really no justification for affirmative action in the first place. However, it is beginning to come under scrutiny at the top level of our government because affirmative action is responsible for the persecution of people based on their gender, skin color, and religious beliefs.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for five hours about the future of “affirmative action” in college admissions. At the conclusion of the lengthy hearing, it was clear that either affirmative action was no longer relevant or that, at the very least, it would be “pining for the fjords” when the ruling was issued in June 2023.
“At issue are two cases where universities use racial preferences to manage the melanin level of their student body (Supreme Court Adds Two New Education Affirmative Action Cases to its Docket and the Left Cries ‘Armageddon’). The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is a state university that uses race in its admission process. Students for Fair Admissions, SFFA, sued in 2014 and lost the case before an Obama judge who ruled that UNC only used the tip used race minimally and had damned good reasons for doing so. Harvard is a private university that also uses race to manage who gets in. The issue, in this case, is that Harvard had a policy of actively discriminating against Asian applicants (Asian students sue Harvard for discrimination),” Red State reported, adding:
In relation to the recent Harvard SCOTUS case:
Asian students who are in the 90th percentile of the Harvard academic index will lose against African Americans who are in the 40th percentile.
“That’s INSANE,” said John Hasson.
Regarding the Harvard SCOTUS case today:
An African American in the 40th percentile of Harvard’s academic index will beat an Asian student with in the 90th percentile
That’s INSANE pic.twitter.com/Ktapu8QBIu
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) October 31, 2022
Harvard won the case after appealing to the First Circuit. Bypassing the Fourth Circuit, SFFA appealed the UNC case directly to the Supreme Court.
These were the arguments to be made when the Supreme Court accepted and consolidated the two cases:
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overturn Grutter v. Bollinger and find that higher education institutions are not permitted to consider race when making admissions decisions;
(2) The legality of a university’s decision to reject a race-neutral option simply because it would alter the student population’s makeup without demonstrating that the alternative would dramatically degrade academic standards or the educational advantages of diversity in the student body as a whole, and
(3) Whether discrimination against Asian Americans applicants, racial balancing, excessive emphasis on race, and rejection of practicable race-neutral alternatives constitute violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act on the part of Harvard College.
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
Patrick Strawbridge, representing Students for Fair Admissions, said allowing the use of race in higher education was an outlier among the court’s decisions that should be rejected.
“Whatever factors the government may use in deciding which jurors to sit, who you may marry, or which primary schools our children can attend, skin color is not one of them,” he said
“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Thomas said to North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Y. Park. CONTINUE READING…