Conservative justices such as Clarence Thomas are reportedly ready to strike down affirmative action, with Thomas comparing it to “bigotry”, which is harmful to everyone regardless of their race:
“I note that racial engineering does in fact have insidious consequences,” Thomas wrote in his response to an affirmative action challenge at the University of Texas. “There can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race. But I believe the injury to those admitted under the University’s discriminatory admissions program is even more harmful.”
“Blacks and Hispanics admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates,” Thomas continued.
The Supreme Court will consider the challenge to the University of North Carolina and Harvard’s race-based admissions procedures.
The arguments will be heard on Oct. 31 by the nation’s highest court.
FreedomWorks’ Alex Deise told reporters that the decision could be “historic,” which means that racial affirmative action could be eliminated from college admissions.
Both Harvard and UNC have been sued over apparent discrimination against Asian and white Americans.”
Frequently commenting on the court, Deise believes that the court should overturn previous decisions that allow racial discrimination.
“By taking these cases, the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to eliminate the ability of colleges and universities to explicitly discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions process,” Deise said.
“Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian-American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit,” according to Fox News.
“It’s very clear to me that Harvard University was engaging in blatant discrimination. And what they were doing was they did not like the fact that Asian-Americans – if they were simply admitted based on their credentials, qualifications – would have such a huge percentage of the student body,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky told Fox News.
“Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas. Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” Edward Blum, the President of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) said in a prepared statement.
Both lawsuits were filed by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization run by Edward Blum in Virginia. Having worked for years to eliminate racial discrimination from college admissions, the new court lineup gives his work new life.
The group wants the court to overturn its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the admissions policy for the University of Michigan’s law school.
College admissions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court several times over the past 40 years. The case is reminiscent of its first big affirmative action case in 1978 when Justice Lewis Powell outlined the rationale for taking race into account while still prohibiting racial quotas for admissions.
Race-based admission policies have also been challenged at many other universities and colleges.
According to Reuters, Texas A&M University has been “hit with a proposed class action claiming its employment policies unlawfully discriminate against white and Asian men.”
“Richard Lowery, an associate professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, filed a complaint alleging that Texas A&M’s affirmative action policies have blocked him from obtaining a faculty job with the university because he is white, according to Conservative Brief.
“These discriminatory, illegal, and anti-meritocratic practices have been egged on by woke ideologues who populate the so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at public and private universities throughout the United States,” Lowery’s lawyers wrote.
Laylan Copelin, vice chancellor of marketing and communications for Texas A&M, responded to Reuters by claiming that Lowery had not even applied for a job.
Justice Thomas continued about the University of Texas saying, “The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched,” he asserted. “But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete. Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self-confidence of these overmatched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the university than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.”
The court, with Thomas, could decide, by a 5-4 decision, that affirmative action violates the Constitution once and for all.