Image 01 Image 03

Trump admin revokes Obama’s pro-affirmative action guidelines

Trump admin revokes Obama’s pro-affirmative action guidelines

Moving towards Chief Justice Robert’s view that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

That simple and correct formulation exposes how racial discrimination in the name of anti-racial discrimination perpetuates the problem. It’s a problem inherent in affirmative action based on race, which, whatever the goals, is a form of racial discrimination.

The Trump administration just took a big step towards incorporating Justice Robert’s wisdom on racial discrimination.

The NY Times reports, Trump Administration Reverses Obama on Affirmative Action:

The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, administration officials said.

Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday….

In a pair of policy guidance documents, the Obama Education and Justice departments told elementary and secondary schools and college campuses to use “the compelling interests” established by the court to achieve diversity. They concluded that the Supreme Court “has made clear such steps can include taking account of the race of individual students in a narrowly tailored manner.”

The Trump administration’s decisions on Tuesday brought government policy back to the George W. Bush administration guidances. The Trump administration did not formally reissue Bush-era guidance on race-based admissions, but, in recent days, officials did repost a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online.

That document states, “The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools.” …

The Trump administration’s plan would scrap the existing policies and encourage schools not to consider race at all. The new policy would not have the force of law, but it amounts to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their admissions policies intact would do so knowing that they could face a Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose federal funding from the Education Department.

The investigation into and lawsuit regarding discrimination against Asians at Harvard highlights how the Trump administration is aligning itself with a total non-discrimination policy in education.

Racial discrimination in the name of diversity has become so fundamental a part of the ethos of higher education that university administrators and activist groups will not let it go easily.

Add it to the list of liberal fears now that Trump gets to nominate a successor to Justice Anthony Kennedy, and possibly others in the coming years:

In total, the DOJ scrapped guidance on 24 policies affecting topics like education, housing finance and criminal justice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the rescissions were necessary because the guidelines “were issued improperly or that were simply inconsistent with current law.”

“In the Trump administration, we are restoring the rule of law,” Sessions said in a statement.

Democrats pounced, noting that the rescissions come roughly a week before Trump is expected to announce his pick to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is slated to step down on July 31. The Harvard University case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court, and the Democrats are concerned that Kennedy’s replacement will prove more hostile to race-based programs like affirmative action.

“The President,” Richmond said, “is sending a message to his future nominee and to his base that he and his administration don’t care about diversity and will actively work to turn back the clock.”



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


rabid wombat | July 3, 2018 at 9:11 pm

For Robert’s faults….“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”. It is statements like this on why most have problems with Lawyers. Most Lawyers (Judges) are overly verbose. This statement is English, and humans understand it. Go back to the “common man” law. The law should not require pedigree degrees and language.

DDsModernLife | July 3, 2018 at 10:24 pm

“Racial discrimination in the name of diversity has become so fundamental a part of the ethos of higher education that university administrators and activist groups will not let it go easily.”


Today on NPR (audio link below) I heard that “Colleges tend to not like being told what to do…” and I thought, “Well, they should be happy that the 0bama-era guidelines have been rescinded.” But (Wow!) I apparently missed the point. The NPR commentator continued by saying, “They’re being told that they can’t use this tool in their arsenal to make their classes more diverse…”

So, diversity is the goal, discrimination is the tool to achieve it, and now *gasp* that discrimination is no longer government sanctioned. It’s Trump’s fault!

Oh, oh. This won’t sit well with the lefty class. Race-blind policies have this tendency to show which races/cultures value certain things whereas other races/cultures value other things. These results embarrass some races/cultures. Asian cultures value academic success; black culture typically does not. Admissions to colleges if based principally on past academic success will have a student body which reflects those value choices. I’m cool with that. The left is not. Because it reveals the value choices of others not in a favorable light. To which I answer, Tight Sneakers.

    MarkS in reply to pfg. | July 4, 2018 at 9:08 am

    This might inspire some to change their ways!

    Valerie in reply to pfg. | July 4, 2018 at 10:45 am

    “Asian cultures value academic success; black culture typically does not.”

    Which asians and which blacks?

    In California, “asian” means what countries like China, Japan, etc. Asian students in California are penalized by having an amount subtracted from their SAT score. “Asian” in the UK means someone from a predominantly Muslim country, usually to obfuscate crime reporting.

    There is a thug culture in the US that pretends that good manners, language, and academic accomplishment is “acting white,” but there is also a substantial fraction of blacks from good families who will not tolerate that nonsense.

    These labels are being used instead of real information about a person, for nefarious purposes.

      Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2018 at 2:45 pm

      “Asian” in the UK means someone from a predominantly Muslim country, usually to obfuscate crime reporting.

      Bulldust. “Asian” in the UK means someone from the subcontinent, which is mostly Hindu, not Moslem. It has nothing to do with obfuscating anything; that’s your own paranoia talking, and you should do something about it.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2018 at 3:33 pm

        ““Asian” in the UK means someone from the subcontinent, which is mostly Hindu, not Moslem.”

        Which is meaningless. It’s the numbers in the UK that are pertinent. Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the UK, not Hindu. Not even close.

        UK Muslim population is 4.4%
        UK Hindu population is 1.5%

        While Hindu’s are the predominant religion on the subcontinent due to the Indian population, there are 500 million + muslims in the 3 countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2018 at 3:16 am

          Once again you resort to your favorite tactic, the red herring, throwing in a true and undisputed but irrelevant statement as if it were an argument.

          Nothing you wrote justifies Valerie’s paranoid nonsense, that the UK usage of “Asian” means someone from a predominantly Moslem country or that it is intended to obfuscate anything.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2018 at 10:31 am

          “Once again you resort to your favorite tactic, the red herring, throwing in a true and undisputed but irrelevant statement as if it were an argument.”

          Once again, I correct your misleading comment, one of your favorite tactics, with the truth. Truth is not something you care for.

          Your comment propaganda was intended to leave the reader with the impression that most UK “Asians” were Hindu. When they are not, they are mostly moslem.

          Valerie’s “paranoia” is shared by a very wide swath of people here and abroad.

          The real paranoia is yours.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | July 6, 2018 at 2:59 am

          Your comment propaganda was intended to leave the reader with the impression that most UK “Asians” were Hindu.

          No, it was not, and you know it very well. It was intended purely to give the truth, and correct Valerie’s paranoid lies.

          You, as is your usual method, did not defend Valerie’s lies, but instead threw in an irrelevant fact, which does not support her claims at all, but you make it appear that it does. The fact that there are more Moslems than Hindus in the UK is utterly irrelevant.

          The fact remains that “Asian”, in the UK, does not mean “someone from a predominantly Muslim country”, it has nothing to do with religion; it means “someone from the Indian subcontinent”, which happens not to be predominantly Moslem. And the fact remains that the term is never used to obfuscate anything. When the perpetrator of a crime is reported as “Asian” it’s because that’s what he is, and has nothing to do with his religion, if any.

          Valerie’s “paranoia” is shared by a very wide swath of people here and abroad.

          Sadly, it is. That’s nothing to be proud of.

        paracelsus in reply to Milhouse. | July 5, 2018 at 2:20 am

        back to ad hominems again, are you?

          paracelsus in reply to paracelsus. | July 5, 2018 at 2:22 am

          The above was a reply to milhouse

          Milhouse in reply to paracelsus. | July 5, 2018 at 3:24 am

          What ad hominem? Do you even know what the term means? I attacked Valerie’s bullsh*t claim on its (lack of) merits, not because she’s the one who made it. I challenge you to cite one instance of my ever using argumentum ad hominem here.

          (Though argumentum ad hominem is not always invalid, and is in fact commonly used here, e.g. to automatically dismiss any claim originating from the Gaza “health ministry” just because that entity has such an established record of lying.)

They claimed that affirmative action was only necessary until we had eliminated racism.

60 years later and they still claim there is ‘systemic’ racism that requires remedy.

These people will never, EVER be satisfied.

    alaskabob in reply to Olinser. | July 3, 2018 at 10:55 pm

    Thurgood Marshall wanted affirmative action to last centuries.

    Arminius in reply to Olinser. | July 4, 2018 at 3:08 am

    There will never not be racism as long as the racists are in power. Plessy v. Ferguson will always remain the law of the land. In that, the SCOTUS will hold the power to determine what forms of racial discrimination are acceptable. Jim Crow 18r96-1954, how’s that for long-standing precedent Susan Collins o’ Maine Miss Roe v. Wade poster girl of 1973.

    I sure hope the Asians suing Harvard for discrimination obliterate them. And I don’t see how they can’t. Harvard’s own internal audits show that had the Asians (and I must caveat this by saying I’m talking about a select group who chose to apply to Harvard and not all Asian Americans) had higher GPAs, test scores, and even were involved in more extra-curricular activities. Had they been rated fairly, instead of constituting 19% of the student body they would have constituted 43%. And we just can’t have that, the leftards nod knowingly.

    “Amber Heard urged in a now-deleted tweet for people to drive their “housekeeper, nannies, and landscapers” home to protect them from ICE checkpoints.”

    So they just assigned Asian applicants with negative subjective personality traits. They can’t possibly courageous, well liked, respected, etc.

    Does any one besides me find this stomach turning? Often without even meeting them the college administrators will simply assign these negative stereotypes to Asian applicants.

    And, again, I have to caveat this by pointing out that Asian isn’t some monolithic bloc of people.

    Doesn’t it say all wee need to know about college administrators, the elite of the left, that they are so quick to assign negative subjective stereotypes to Asians? Because I can tell you right now based upon my limited experience in recruiting that if someone even half way approaching Bruce Lee walked in to my office I’d have rolled out the red carpet. Not because he was a check in the block diversity hire but he was quality. Harvard is inventing reasons to turn them away.

    “MSG Roy Benavidez speech 1991”

    From the bottom of my heart, I hope you have a happy Independence Day. Courtesy of people like Raul “Roy” Perez Benavidez, a proud American.

Jew privilege, White privilege, and Asian privilege are progressive artifacts of a minority ideology. Judge people by the content of their character (i.e. principles, individually), not the color of their skin. That said, affirmative action does not need to be judgmental and discriminatory (i.e. “labels”).

    Arminius in reply to n.n. | July 4, 2018 at 5:02 am

    Jew privilege? Asian privilege? News to me. I though we lived under a system of white supremacy built by old white slave owning male cisgendered patriarchs.

    But let’s take these things one at a time.


    While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

    The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

    If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

    The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

    It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

    May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

    May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

    G. Washington”

    But it wasn’t just the fact that American Jews bankrolled the Revolution. They paid in blood. The following is not from the revolution but it might as well have been I’m just not the capable historian to put it together.

    “Abraham Cohn is a Jewish American soldier who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in honor of his valor during the American Civil War.

    Cohn (born June 17, 1832; died June 2, 1897) was born in Guttentag, Prussia (modern-day Poland) and later came to the United States where he joined the Union Army. During the Civil War, Cohn was a Sergeant Major with the 6th New Hampshire Infantry.

    At the Battle of the Wilderness in Virginia on May 6, 1864, Cohn rallied and reformed the disorganized and fleeing Union troops from several regiments and helped established a new line of defense that held against the Confederate Army. At the Battle of Petersburg, also in Virginia on July 30, 1864, Cohn bravely and coolly carried orders to the advanced Union line while under severe fire from Confederate troops.

    On August 24, 1865, Cohn was officially awarded the Medal of Honor, the United States’ highest military honor.

    Abraham Cohn died in June 1897 and was buried in New York City.”

      Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 4, 2018 at 5:21 am

      I suppose the Jews must pay for teaching me Krav Maga at the Lawrence Community Center during my years stationed in Sandy Eggo. What the h3ll were you thinking?

      Now I am no longer in a position to b, ail you out, Jews. Because I’m going to be in the lock up with you.

      Happy Independence Day. Next, Doris Miller, Silver Star, Pearl Harbor.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to n.n. | July 4, 2018 at 7:57 am

    A privilege of paying for all those welfare queens who crank out babies for the money, but fail to nurture them. Then society has to pay to put most of the males in jail. It is a vicious cycle.
    On top of that, blacks have become society’s most rabid racists.
    I am all for anyone, regardless of race achieving success through their own hard work, at the same time, I am really tired of supporting dull witted losers.

A great first step, but my guess is that most university, infested with their sjws admins, won’t bother to change their own guidelines concerning affirmative action unless they are litigated.

Obama’s guidelines only allowed them to do what they have always wanted to do. Until the universities are rid of their SJW ideology they won’t go quietly into the night.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to c0cac0la. | July 4, 2018 at 11:59 am

    I think they will be sued since they are giving away taxpayers’ money while practicing their racial discrimination. Then state legislatures start cutting their funding because of their illegal racial discrimination.

As my son is poised to start applying to colleges soon, I am thrilled. God bless President Trump. #BestElectionEver

Affirmative Action is State Sponsored Racial Discrimination, by people who should know better.



Take your pick.

I was just wondering to myself what the next liberal meltdown was going to be over. Seems we have found it hahaahahahahaa

“…Miller’s story inspired an influx of African Americans to the war effort, moved by the heroism Miller demonstrated on that tragic day over 75 years ago…”

I’m not going to write much about Miller simply because I hope you will be interested enough to read for yourselves.

As an addendum, as if his life could be termed as such:

None of the actions being taken by Democrats made any sense to me until I did a bit of a deep dive into postmodernist philosophy. When you understand what this philosophy is, from where it came, and the fundamental demands it makes, you realize what a horribly toxic and dishonest philosophy it is. It is also the very basis for just about every demand and action taken by Democrats over the last few decades. I would strongly urge people to watch any of the many excellent lectures by Stephen Hicks, Jordan Peterson, and others, available on YouTube

Affirmative action was instituted as a method to correct “discrimination and racism”. Now that its effectivity has run its course, the goal has changed to “promote diversity”; but to do that, discrimination and racism is being re-instituted. Is the “progressive left” moving forward or moving backwards?

healthguyfsu | July 4, 2018 at 8:21 am

This whole “time to fight dirty” line that Dems are now parading shows a complete lack of self-awareness. These delusional idiots seem to think they were taking the high road all of this time…Ha!

Dilbert Deplorable | July 4, 2018 at 9:19 am

Yeah, there is nothing that proves democrats are the most rascist people on the planet than diversity quotas.

Diversity quotas are institutional racism.

Racial Quotas essentially tell everyone that black people, brown people, rainbow people are to stupid to do anything on their own and need white bigot rascist democrats to help them since they can’t possibly do it themselves because they’re inferior to their white racist masters.

Combine that with the wholesale slaughter of black babies in our democraT run inner cities by abortion and rampant violence that kills more people than Afghanistan and you have proof of Democrat racism.

Close The Fed | July 4, 2018 at 9:38 am

I believe this is all beside the point. Do we wish to live in an actually free country, or just something that at a glance appears to be one? I, for one, prefer a truly free existence to this serfdom in which I now live.

The statutes, regulations, etc., that prohibit me from doing what I damn well please – discriminate on any basis I choose — are abhorrent. I as I have written here before, would never choose a culturally Asian person as an employee – or anything else for that matter. We should all be restored to our fundamental civil right to sell to whom we choose, to rent to whom we choose, to teach to whom we choose.

Anything else is enforced association which is a moral abomination which can only be justified to the extent – and really, not even to this extent – that blacks were by statute refused equal service. In other words, whites could not serve them equally due to law.

However, none of my friends- I am 60 – none of them ever worked under conditions of legally-enforced segregation. Thus penalizing us for this is immoral.

I am in favor of abolishing all laws on the subject, and let people go where they wish to go and refuse service to those they wish to refuse service; in order words, actual, not fake, freedom.

And let me say this: if you wail that no blacks, asians, jews, etc., would get service, you truly have spent no time with businessmen as I have. Make no mistake: the dollar is king and they will avoid offending or even taking a public position on many, many things in order to continue to have such persons frequent their establishments.

When legally enforced, they had no choice. Without the legal requirement, they are quite open, regardless, to serving all kinds of people.

We are tearing ourselves apart over what actually is none of our government’s business. It’s one thing to give advantage to blacks because many of their ancestors were brought here in the holds of really crappy ships in chains like cord wood, but we owe nothing to latins* that voluntarily walk here and pay coyotes because they want to make more money and skim our welfare system and school system and medical system and road systems.

*I use “latin” as in America we anglicize words. “Latino” is the Spanish form of the word and inappropriate in America.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 4, 2018 at 11:04 am

Here come the Asians onto the Trump Train

I’m just going to leave this here. It’s Mark Twain’s essay in the original Harper’s issue, “Concerning the Jews.” I first found it when I was trying to read all things Mark Twain in college.;view=1up;seq=551

I though it was hilarious, but the corker was the response I read from some prominent Jew that they really did not need this kind of help because it was counterproductive. Yes, the man chose to take offense at being praised.

Something in that man’s response explains why there were so many Jewish communists and are so many Jewish SJWs.

Affirmative action was introduced in 1961 and was originally limited to banning discrimination based upon race in federal hiring. This was later expanded by various political entities to actually provide for discrimination for select groups, mostly Blacks. It was later extended to provide discrimination for several other minority groups. It was old to the American People as being a remedy for previous discrimination against these groups which led to those groups being unable to compete effectively with the white majority. The assumption was that after a few years, these groups would be able to effectively compete and affirmative action would no longer be needed.

Now, either the entire theory was false and nothing that is done to discriminate for minorities is ever going to allow them to compete effectively against the majority in a color blind world, or it was all a lie to begin with. Either way, it is time to end this fiasco. If it is true that these minorities can not compete, even after nearly 60 years of positive discrimination, then perhaps reestablishing fair competition will stimulate the development of these minorities to be able to compete with the majority.