According to reports, conservative judges like Clarence Thomas are prepared to abolish affirmative action since it is harmful to all people regardless of race and compares it to “bigotry”:
In his answer to an affirmative action protest at the University of Texas, Thomas noted that racial engineering “does in fact have insidious consequences. There can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race. But I believe the injury to those admitted under the University’s discriminatory admissions program is even more harmful.”
Thomas said that, “Blacks and Hispanics admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates.”
The University of North Carolina and Harvard’s admissions policies are being challenged, and the Supreme Court will take this into consideration.
The nation’s highest court will hear the arguments on October 31.
According to FreedomWorks’ Alex Deise, the judgment may be “historic,” which would mean that racial affirmative action might no longer be used in college admissions.
Due to what appears to be prejudice against Asian and white Americans, both Harvard and UNC have been sued.
Deise frequently criticizes the court and thinks it ought to reverse earlier rulings that sanction racial discrimination.
According to Deise, “By taking these cases, the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to eliminate the ability of colleges and universities to explicitly discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions process.”
“Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian-American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit,” according to Fox News.
“It’s very clear to me that Harvard University was engaging in blatant discrimination. And what they were doing was they did not like the fact that Asian-Americans – if they were simply admitted based on their credentials, qualifications – would have such a huge percentage of the student body,” according to Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.
“Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas. Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” according to Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA).
Students for Fair Admissions, an organization led by Edward Blum in Virginia, filed both complaints. The new court lineup gives his years of advocacy to end racial discrimination in college admissions new vigor.
The group is asking the court to reverse its 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which supported the University of Michigan law school’s admissions criteria.
Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has examined college admissions multiple times. The situation reminds one of the first significant affirmative action decision, in which Justice Lewis Powell explained the justification for considering race but yet forbidding racial quotas for admissions, in 1978.
Numerous other colleges and universities have also faced criticism for their racial admissions policies.
Texas A&M University has reportedly “hit with a proposed class action claiming its employment policies unlawfully discriminate against white and Asian men,” according to Reuters.
According to Conservative Brief, ““Richard Lowery, an associate professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, filed a complaint alleging that Texas A&M’s affirmative action policies have blocked him from obtaining a faculty job with the university because he is white.”
Lowery’s attorneys stated that “These discriminatory, illegal, and anti-meritocratic practices have been egged on by woke ideologues who populate the so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at public and private universities throughout the United States.”
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
Laylan Copelin, vice chancellor of marketing and communications for Texas A&M, responded to Reuters by claiming that Lowery had not even applied for a job.
Justice Thomas continued about the University of Texas saying, “The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched,” he asserted. “But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete. Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self-confidence of these overmatched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the university than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.” CONTINUE READING…