Supreme Court Sacks Affirmative Action — Here Comes the End-Around – The American

The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed explicit racism in college admissions on Thursday. This naturally outraged those so obsessed with outlawing explicit racism in college admissions that they instituted it.

The dissent defends, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College majority opinion, “a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is ‘inherently unequal,’ said Brown. It depends, says the dissent.”

How “inherently unequal”? The statistics involving the two universities brought to court indicate the extreme racism employed by anti-racism crusaders in their drive for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, more than four in five blacks in the top decile won admission; fewer than three in ten Asians and whites in that same bloc did. At Harvard University, an African American student in the sixth decile of all applicants enjoyed a slightly better chance of admission than an Asian student in the top decile.

It does not require a Harvard education to identify that as discrimination. In fact, it seems easier to see it for what it is without a degree from any Ivy League school. As the saying goes: You can tell a Harvard man — you just can’t tell him that favoring blacks and Hispanics with lower grades and test scores over whites and Asians amounts to racism.

Thomas’ Wisdom, Jackson’s Dissent

Ketanji Brown Jackson, an affirmative action admit to Harvard and the beneficiary of a similar mindset embraced by a president promising to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, comes across in dissent — she recused herself from the Harvard half of the case because of work for the school — like one of those Harvard men whom you can tell but not tell him much. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today,” Jackson dissented, “the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat.”

But the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause comes not from whim but rather from the Constitution. The Supreme Court relied on the same equal protection clause to rule in Brown v. Board of Education. Is Jackson prepared to say the court relied on “legal fiat” in that case, too?

In contrast to the jurist who speaks the most in oral arguments, the one who opens his mouth the least offered much worth pondering in his quite lengthy concurring opinion.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued that “it is not clear how racial diversity, as opposed to other forms of diversity, uniquely and independently advances Harvard’s goal. This is particularly true because Harvard blinds itself to other forms of applicant diversity, such as religion. It may be the case that exposure to different perspectives and thoughts can foster debate, sharpen young minds, and hone students’ reasoning skills. But, it is not clear how diversity with respect to race, qua race, furthers this goal.”

Supreme Court Provides an End-Around

As the “separate but equal” doctrine, poll taxes, and other creative tricks employed by Jim Crow racists show, racists always find ways to skirt the law. The author of the opinion unfortunately provides a playbook containing an end-around on the law. Roberts — in a hint, hint way? — writes that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” Get ready for admissions offices coaching applicants of color to highlight race in essays, and schools suddenly discovering that such essays outweigh grades and test scores in whether to accept or reject a student.

The decision makes it harder for schools to practice racism in admissions. It does not make it impossible, however, so Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard looks more like a progression from Bakke, Hopwood, and Grutter than like the last word on the question of racial preferences in colleges and universities.

“[U]niversities may define their missions as they see fit,” Roberts explained. “The Constitution defines ours. Courts may not license separating students on the basis of race without an exceedingly persuasive justification that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review.”