The Supreme Court recently announced that it would consider appeals against Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s discriminatory admissions practices.
The nation’s highest court has set a hearing date on October 31.
Alex Deise, a policy manager at FreedomWorks, claimed that the Supreme Court might issue a landmark decision banning “ability for higher education to use race-based affirmative action in admissions.”
Some claim their civil rights were violated because it has been claimed that Asian and white applicants were discriminated against by UNC and Harvard throughout the admissions process.
Another recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has resulted in a significant victory for veterans.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (5-4) in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety that governments cannot claim sovereign immunity to bar veterans from regaining prior employment with state employees.
According to Justice Stephen Breyer’s judgment, “Upon entering the Union, the States implicitly agreed that their sovereignty would yield to federal policy to build and keep a national military. States thus gave up their immunity from congressionally authorized suits pursuant to the ‘plan of the Convention,’ as part of ‘the structure of the original Constitution itself.’”
A Texas state trooper named Torres alleged that he was demoted from his position after returning from Iraq; Torres believes that the lung damage he sustained from Iraq’s burn pits prevented him from continuing to serve as a trooper. He asked for a different position but was turned down.
“We should not have to fear of losing our jobs, we come back. But now there’s a sense of peace and of comfort that we can come back and hey, you know what, if I have limitations that they’ll be accommodated,” Torres stated after the ruling of SCOUTS.
After five years, Torres said to the media, “Returning from Iraq after five years has had many challenges but I am grateful to God for the strength that he’s giving me along the way and for our community.”
Torres is appreciative of this decision since it will benefit thousands of veterans.
“This shouldn’t be an issue anymore. With those rights that are protected for individuals,” Vicente Gonzales, a representative, posted on Twitter.
“This is a Monumental step for our veterans. Anyone in the military Community knows that exposure to burn pits can lead to lifelong Health complications. We cannot punish our veterans for trying to re-enter civilian life with injuries sustained while protecting our nation.”
According to Fox News, “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.” This case involves the UNC and Harvard race-based admissions policies. As a result of the initial lawsuit, the action also aims to determine if Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allegedly discriminating against Asian-American students.
“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,” The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky was cited by Fox News as saying.
In a prepared statement, SFFA President Edward Blum stated that “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 UCI Law Professor Rachel Moran to Fox News Digital, overturning Grutter “would be the most dramatic, most far-reaching decision the Court could arrive at.So, under that approach, the Court would say that they don’t believe that under the First Amendment, academic freedom has any special stature.
And because diversity is an expression of the college or university’s freedom to compose its student body, that doesn’t carry any special weight.”
Conservative Brief reports that “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas previously made it clear he’s ready to strike down affirmative action, calling the practice comparable to “bigotry.”
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
“I note that racial engineering does in fact have insidious consequences,” Thomas wrote, concerning a challenge to an affirmative action program at the University of Texas. “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 earlier asserted. CONTINUE READING…