Diversity quotas, as well as melanin-over-merit privileges, could be a thing of the past if the United States Supreme Court rules against Affirmative Action in favour of three open cases from Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA).
The 20,000-strong multi-ethnic non-profit coalition issued complaints against Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Texas.
All of which allege that current diversity quotas, and melanin-over-merit university admissions practices, are racist, and therefore are at odds with standards set out in the United States constitution.
The Supreme Court reply brief summed up SFFA’s case against Harvard, stating, “Harvard uses race as a proxy for character, equates race with winning a national award, micromanages tight racial ranges, never considered race neutrality, makes no plans to stop using race.”
In their complaint, SFFA specifically accused Harvard’s admissions policies and procedures of “injuring and continue to injure’ SFFA members ‘by intentionally, and improperly, discriminating against them on the basis of their race and ethnicity.”
SFFA’s case against UNC argued that the academy is, “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
SFFA’s case against U.T. declared that “racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, and unconstitutional.
“Applicants, who are white, were denied the opportunity to compete for admission to UT-Austin on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity because of UT-Austin’s discriminatory admissions policies.”
In addition, SFFA alleged that U.T discriminated against Asian-Americans: “Even though there were fewer Asian-Americans, than Hispanics enrolled at the university. UT-Austin deemed Asian-Americans ‘overrepresented’ based on state demographics.”
All while, SFFA said, “UT-Austin continued to recognize Asian Americans as a minority in its diversity statistics, marketing materials, and in analysing classroom diversity.”
In its 33-page Reply Brief, SFFA also slammed the Ivy League University for using ‘indefensible reasoning’ to try and subvert the case.
SFFA lawyers argued the case had strong standing.
Especially in light of Harvard’s use of Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 precedent that declared using ‘an applicant’s race as one factor in an admissions policy’ was neither racist, or discrimination on ethnic grounds – not a violation of the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
In their reply, SFFA’s legal counsel convincingly argued that Grutter “remains egregiously wrong, harmful, and ripe to be overruled.”
Furthermore, “Grutter’s problems extend beyond its poor reasoning. The decision is rooted in racism, unworkable, and destabilizing.”
The National Review explained the SFFA cases open the door to a more concrete ban on Affirmative Action policies by way of the Supreme Court potentially correcting bad practices drawn from Grutter v. Bollinger.
Which was, as SFFA argued, a bad ruling, now used as the standard to permit discrimination against a person due to their ethnicity, and/or shade of melanin.
Yale University responding to questions from CNBC, confirmed their admissions policies were guided by this ‘Supreme Court precedent.’ In other words, practices are not based on the United States constitution.
Yale admissions are, instead, based on untested, and arbitrary interpretations of that constitution: “Yale admissions practices adherer to Supreme Court precedent, and Yale College will continue to consider race and ethnicity as one part of its careful, whole-person review of applications. Yale will not waver in its commitment’ to diversity.
Even ivory tower alarmists at the New York Times see an end in sight, warning, “With the Supreme Court’s recent shift to the right, the affirmative action cases could upset 40 years of precedent that says race can be considered as one factor in determining university admission.”
Writing in defence of Grutter v. Bollinger the NYT said, “such a shift could have significant implications for universities, many of which have argued that diverse environments enhance learning by exposing students to a variety of perspectives.”
Not so, say the SFFA, and its 20,000-strong member base comprised of both parents and students.
Their three cases are a necessary Constitutional correction to unconstitutional, racist, diversity quotas, and melanin-over-merit admissions/hiring practices.
This sentiment was bolstered by Yale alum, Justice Clarence Thomas – who responded to UNC counsel, Ryan Park’s oral arguments about the benefits of diversity quotas in the SFFA v. UNC case – asking Park to better define diversity, stating, “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means.”
Justice Thomas added, “You still haven’t given to me the educational benefits. I didn’t go to racially diverse schools, but there were educational benefits…Tell me what the educational benefits are?”
Park answered, “The most concrete possible scenario is stock trading. There are studies that find racially diverse groups perform at a higher level making more efficient trading decisions. The mechanism there is that it reduces groupthink, and people have more longer, and sustained disagreement, and that leads to more efficient outcomes.”
Justice Thomas replied, “Well, I don’t much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favour of segregation too.”
Although Justice Thomas was a beneficiary of Affirmative Action programs, Bloomberg inferred that the Supreme Court judge had a distaste for how the policy has been overused and abused.
Bloomberg cited Thomas’ 2007 memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, where he stated, “As much as it stung to be told that I’d done well in the seminary despite my race, it was far worse to feel that I was now at Yale because of it.”
Likewise, Thomas Sowell.
Talking about the success of Affirmative Action, Sowell said there was a “striking difference between the political myth and the economic reality.”
In his 2004 book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Sowell stated: preferential policies create “poisonous intergroup relations and [are] real dangers to the fabric of society.”
He found that the empirical evidence failed to support claims propping up identity politics – its diversity quotas, and melanin-over-merit hiring/admissions practices.
In India, where Affirmative Action activism has been around for over half a century, Sowell said, “the minor benefits have led to greater resentments, which have erupted into lethal violence.”
He then cautioned, “Despite sweeping claims made for affirmative action programs, an examination of their actual consequences makes it hard to support those claims – unless one is prepared to say that any amount of social redress, however small, is worth any amount of costs and dangers, however large.”
There’s good reason to reverse bad precedent.
The quota system’s educational hand-outs can lead to employment handicaps, because melanin-over-merit practices water-down quality for the sake of quantity – appearances over substance.
The three cases brought about by Students for Fair Admissions are potentially life-saving.
Race and ethnicity should not be ‘factors that either harm or help students gain admission to a competitive university.’
This is because merit defines professionalism, not identity politics, and its socially acceptable, racist obsession with melanin.