Our column in The NY Post about amicus briefs filed against the Asian students in the Harvard/UNC Supreme Court discrimination cases: “The educational establishment’s uniformity and vigor in supporting racial preferences is staggering.”
As you know, we have been following very closely the lawsuit brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, alleging admissions discrimination against Asian applicants. The case was just scheduled for argument in the U.S. Supreme Court for October 31, 2022. It could end Affirmative Action as we know it.
The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Asian students. It provides, in part:
The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.
Johanna Markind of LIF, who co-authored the brief with me, and I have a column in the NY Post on the amicus briefs filed against the Asian students, Higher ed unites against Asian students in Supreme Court’s Harvard discrimination case.
Go to the link and read the whole thing, here’s an excerpt:
The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants — or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it.
The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs…
The statistics are shocking. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment….
Not a single college or university supported the Asian students. To the contrary, several dozen briefs were filed against SFFA on behalf of hundreds of colleges, universities, higher-education and professional-school associations, teachers unions, more than 1,000 professors and deans and even college basketball coaches.
One of the most striking things about these briefs is the openness with which colleges admit to having racial preferences and their complete lack of sympathy for the Asian victims of discrimination.
The American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, bluntly demanded the court “not ban race-conscious admissions policies.” The University of California president and chancellors argued that “universities must retain the ability to engage in the limited consideration of race.”
A group of highly competitive schools including most of the Ivy League claimed, “No race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body.”
Without racial preferences, in other words, these schools could not achieve their desired racial mix….
The Supreme Court faces a stark choice: Continue the nod to racial discrimination or, as Chief Justice John Roberts once wrote, hold: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Like I said, click over to the link for the whole thing. And share it.
UPDATE – A reader in NYC sent this photo of the column as it appeared in the print newspaper:DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.