Outlawing schools’ overtly racist admissions insurance policies was lengthy overdue, and I’m glad the Supreme Court dominated the best way it did yesterday.
But is it going to have any affect in actual life?
Ask your self why schools like Harvard have already gone “test-optional,” which means SAT’s and ACT’s and the remainder of the standardized exams that may’t be gamed by tutorial Marxists are out the window.
Harvard and UNC and all the remainder of them are actually going to rely much more on say, essays, through which in any other case unqualified highschool college students could make it very clear whether or not they’re members of protected lessons, or not.
In the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts warned in opposition to that apparent grift, saying that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”
Oh yeah? Just watch them do it, Mr. Chief Justice. They might get sued, however that’s the place that $50 billion Harvard endowment will come in useful.
The pampered pukes pushing this latest type of de jure racism are Democrats. They don’t consider in equal rights or blind justice, any greater than they did when their predecessors within the get together have been firing on Fort Sumter or beginning the Ku Klux Klan.
The Democrats consider they will do something they need, anytime, and get away with it. Are they unsuitable? Look at Hunter Biden.
The proponents of this state-sanctioned racism actually don’t prefer it whenever you quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
What a part of that sentence do the modern-day racialists not perceive?
There’s a e-book known as “How to be an Anti-Racist,” by a man named who modified his identify from Ibram Henry Rogers to Ibram Xolani Kendi – an excellent profession transfer, clearly.
Mr. Rogers, er Kendi, let the cat out of the bag when he wrote the next:
“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Pretty clear, proper? Too clear, apparently, as a result of the brand new version features a rewritten model of that paragraph:
“The only remedy to negative racist discrimination that produces inequity is positive antiracist discrimination that produces equity….”
So discrimination in opposition to whites and Asians is “positive.” And singling out some teams for discrimination primarily based solely on their pores and skin colour is okay as a result of it’s a type of “antiracist” racism? Have I acquired that straight?
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in yesterday’s determination: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion mentioning how absurd it’s to enthusiastically promote racism to finish racism.
“It is not even theoretically possible to ‘help’ a certain racial group without causing harm to members of other racial groups. It should be obvious that every racial classification helps, in a narrow sense, some races and hurts others.”
The proponents of recent anti-white, anti-Asian racism all the time love to speak about “disparate impact.” I’d argue that’s an excellent description of what occurs with sure white candidates at these elite colleges.
If you’re the trust-funded offspring of some filthy wealthy white household, Harvard isn’t going to carry your race in opposition to you. Am I proper, Jared Kushner and a thousand different “legacy” Harvard grads?
No, the one disparate affect during the last 50 years or so has been on whites and Asians from lower-middle-class, blue-collar households.
As Justice Thomas famous, this outrageous, unconstitutional racism by Harvard and UNC that the Supreme Court struck down yesterday is nothing new for both college.
“History has repeatedly shown that purportedly benign discrimination may be pernicious, and discriminators may go to great lengths to hide and perpetuate their unlawful conduct.”
Take Harvard, please.
“Harvard’s ‘holistic’ admissions policy,” Thomas wrote, “began in the 1920s when it was developed to exclude Jews.”
As for my alma mater, Thomas famous, “UNC also has a checkered history, dating back to its time as a segregated university…. To the extent past is prologue, the university respondents’ histories hardly recommend them as trustworthy arbiters of whether racial discrimination is necessary to achieve educational goals.”
Ditto, Dementia Joe Biden, who denounced yesterday’s determination from the White House. This is the man who within the Seventies stated he didn’t need his youngsters going to high school in a “racial jungle.” Now he’s the Great Emancipator. When it involves endorsing racist insurance policies, Biden is as soiled as the 2 “elite” colleges.
“Harvard and UNC now forthrightly state,” Thomas famous, “that they racially discriminate when it comes to admitting students.”
So Harvard and UNC, who acknowledge that their previous racism was evil, now argue that their current racism is virtuous. Have I acquired that proper?
In his concurring opinion, Thomas even talked about the historical past of racism in opposition to Asian-Americans, courting again to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the internment of Japanese-Americans throughout World War II by a Democrat president.
“Asian Americans can hardly be described as the beneficiaries of historical racial advantages.”
So these schools that previously embraced “gentlemen’s agreements” in opposition to Jews and Democrat Jim Crow racism in opposition to blacks now espouse a brand new Politically Correct type of racism – “affirmative action,” in opposition to Asians and blue-collar whites.
All the pampered pukes within the Democrat get together and state-run media (however I repeat myself) will argue that with out racism we will by no means overcome racism.
In reality, you’ll be able to sum up the entire argument for the racial-preferences rip-off in a single single particular person case, and right here it’s:
If we don’t have racial quotas and set-asides, then how will there ever be any alternatives for development for oppressed minorities like…. Elizabeth Warren.
Er, by no means thoughts.
Source: www.bostonherald.com”