More Universities Plan to Defy Trump Administration on Race Based Admissions
“Harvard University sent out an email to the student body reaffirming its decision”
Yale was the first to announce this but more schools are following their lead.
Campus Reform reports:
Universities pledge to maintain affirmative action policies
Several major universities are pledging to continue using race as a factor in hiring and admissions after the Trump administration reversed the federal endorsement of affirmative action.
In the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ move to rescind government guidance on affirmative action, universities across the country, including many Ivy League schools, are coming forward with statements asserting their intent to maintain the policy.
“Affirmative action is a proven method of promoting diversity on our campus and is supported by decades of American case law,” Dartmouth College announced in a press release last week. “Dartmouth remains firmly committed to exercising that right to affirmative action in hiring and admissions.”
Yale University has also come forward to declare that it has no intention of changing its admissions policies or standards.
“Yale seeks to create a vibrant and varied academic community where our students interact with people of different backgrounds and points of view,” Yale spokesman Tom Conroy told The Yale Daily News. “Our admissions policies and practices reflect and support this goal.”
Conroy also told the publication that Yale’s procedures and policies related to admissions have and will continue to reflect the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant laws.
Likewise, Harvard University sent out an email to the student body reaffirming its decision not to change the current policy in light of Session’s announcement.
“Harvard will continue to vigorously defend its right, and that of all colleges and universities, to consider race as one factor among many in college admissions, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court for more than 40 years,” spokesperson Melodie L. Jackson wrote in the email, as reported by The Harvard Crimson.
Notably, Harvard is currently engaged in a legal battle to defend its affirmative action policies against accusations that they discriminate against Asian American applicants.
In a July 3 statement, University of Texas President Gregory L. Fenves took a similar position, referencing the 2016 Supreme Court case Fisher v University of Texas at Austin, in which the school was accused of racial discrimination against a white woman.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Looks like a job for the free market.
Operation of the market hinges on information. Rational buyers need to know what they’re buying. Some products need to give buyers this information as a matter of law; truth in advertising, standardized weights and measures marked on the front of the box, dire health risks (real or imaginary, as the government has decided for the moment), etc. Schools should be such products, with such information provided.
So, where’s the list of schools which base admissions, wholly or in part, on discrimination by race or gender? There are over 4000 2- or 4-year degree-granting “institutions of higher learning” in the United States, and the customer could use a hand in sifting through the pile.
These lists wouldn’t just be clouds of judgement calls; if a school has a certain admissions policy, particularly one it’s willing to announce publicly, then it should be easy enough to put the school on the right list.
Were I a prospective customer, I’d certainly want to know which schools are dedicated to education and which to diversity. One, I’ll pay for; the other, well, not so much. It’s up to me, the buyer, to decide if any one school can do both.
I believe we can all take a lesson from the words of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. who said “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Why do these leftists plan to fight this? Easy answer, many who “administer” such programs are themselves affirmative action hires. Michelle Obama had a $350K annual position (never replaced once she moved to Washington) overseeing such BS at a Chicago hospital system.
Sue them up to the sky
1. This is in DIRECT violation of the Civil Rights Act and several other laws on the books.
2. That the SCOTUS has upheld using RACE for any type of discrimination is a travesty, reminiscent to me of Dred Scott, Plessy, etc., to their – and our – shame. Why use SCOTUS to support this wrong ideological, discriminatory practice?! (rhetorical)
3. Only racists believe this has been good for anyone, which I believe was shown years ago in published studies. Ironically (or perhaps it’s Orwellian) those of us who want to live by MLK Jr.’s “dream” are being classified as “racist” because we want to follow the law and remove racial consideration for jobs, for college, etc.
4. This will only change when Conservatives get positioned to kick our or expose the left who are in control of almost every institution or powerful group: public ed, higher ed, charitable 501(c)3/(c)4s, and most if not all of the media.
5. This is socialism/Marxism, fascism, Alinsky-ism in practice. Disgraceful.
*Correction to #3 – *which I believe was documented years ago
The next step is to enforce existing laws on denying admission or preferential treatment based on race, sex, identity, etc.