Supreme Court considers banning race in college admissions

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Monday in two cases that could determine whether colleges can consider race in their college admissions process, a decision that could drastically affect how colleges admit students, and impact racial diversity far beyond higher education.

The cases deal with the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued both schools, alleging their policies, which consider race as a factor in admissions, discriminate against Asian American applicants.

SFFA first sued Harvard in 2014, and is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 2003 landmark decision Grutter v. Bollinger, which permitted race to be considered as one factor in college admissions because it believed student body diversity was "a compelling state interest."

In writing the opinion in the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," and added that "we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."

Now, 19 years later, the Supreme Court is revisiting whether racial preferences are, in fact, still necessary.

"The Supreme Court is going to once and for all be answering the question of whether our nation’s college and universities can consider race in the admissions process," Kimberly Herman, general counsel for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

It is "one of the most consequential supreme court cases to ever be heard in higher education," Danielle Holley, Dean of Howard University Law School told Fox News Digital. "For selective admission universities, it would mean that if the Supreme Court finds against Harvard or UNC, those universities could no longer consider race in any way in admissions."

That outcome would have significant effects on diversity on college campuses, Tiffany Atkins, a law professor at Elon Law School, told Fox News Digital.

"From my perspective as a law professor and a lawyer, this is important because it affects the students that I teach, the conversations that we have, the richness of the conversation in the classroom," Atkins said.  

The consequences of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of SFFA would be far reaching, Atkins added, potentially affecting the pipeline for professions like doctors and lawyers.

Yvette Pappoe, an assistant law professor at the University of D.C., said eliminating race-conscious admissions would have "devastating consequences on people of color, minorities generally," and strongly advocated for them to continue.

"We absolutely still need race conscious admissions programs. The whole point of affirmative action was not to reward historically advantaged groups. The whole point was to remedy past discrimination, whether intentional or not, and that has not been remedied, whether we like to admit it or not," Pappoe said.

"Banning such programs will harm students, it will harm schools, it will harm society in interrelated ways. It will not only deepen the existing racial disparities in higher education and other social institutions, it will disadvantage specifically Black candidates and other students of color in the admissions process. And then finally, it will fuel racist stereotypes about people of color, including and specifically Black women," Pappoe added.

In the event that the Supreme Court did rule in favor of SFFA, Pappoe predicted it would not take long for diversity on college campuses to be affected.

"In the blink of an eye, I can see that universities that have these policies that no longer want to have the policies will now have a reason to drop these policies. It could happen in this current cycle," she said, predicting that it could take less than a year.

Because of this, Jonathan Feingold, an associate professor at Boston University School of Law, said it should be "concerning" that the Supreme Court may do away with affirmative action on college campuses.

"For anyone who’s committed to a racial diversity on campus, it certainly should be concerning to think of a future in which the Supreme Court prohibits any university from taking race into account," he said. "I think anyone who’s interested in a racially diverse campus, among other elements of diversity, [it] warrants concern."

The Supreme Court is looking specifically at education in considering these cases, but their decision could have impacts for other industries as well.

Feingold emphasized the importance of affirmative action in employment, saying it remains "a potent mechanism to make processes just more fair and neutral, such that the people who should have been there from the beginning are there now."

Atkins also warned that depending on what the court says in their ruling, there could be a "domino effect" in other areas.

"Here, we are talking about just the context of education. However, if they’re holding that the consideration of race is a violation of the equal protection clause, then I think that we will see a domino effect in other cases that could be touched," Atkins said.

But, this would not necessarily be a bad thing, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "I hope anywhere where race is being used for purposes such as awarding scholarships, hiring, will realize that they cannot do it."

"What the folks who support this are doing is setting up the same kind of racial spoils system that our civil rights laws were intended to stop, and the only thing they are changing is who benefits and who hurts," von Spakovsky added.   

https://www.foxnews.com/media/stake-supreme-court-considers-banning-college-admissions-basic-fairness

********************************************************

My University Forced Me to Take Courses in Leftism

As I accepted an offer to enroll at American University in the spring of 2020, I knew what I was getting into.   

With American University currently ranked by Niche, a large college-information aggregator and review platform, as the single most liberal university in the country, you’d think I’d be a fool for even considering going there.  

One review on Niche cited “almost no diversity when it comes to political beliefs.” But I was set on taking my scholarship money and running with it.   

In my very first semester, I quickly realized that the ranking was well deserved.  

I found out, as a starry-eyed college freshman, that “American” University might not be so American, after all.

My first class, which was nothing special, took place over Zoom, since I entered college at the height of the COVID-19 hysteria. I was sitting in my small apartment, listening to my fellow classmates introduce themselves and our professor going through “housekeeping” information.   

The first few classes went on like that, with the professor discussing various university resources and other miscellaneous information. Then things took a turn for the woke.    

All freshmen at AU are required to take AUx1 and AUx2, and all other students must take them to graduate. As part of the AU core curriculum, they take center stage as one of the first college experiences a new student will have.   

Both classes are a deluge of leftism.   

The very first text the professor assigned us to read was “Rising up From Hatred.” It recounts the story of a white nationalist who turned away from the movement and lived to tell the tale. Seems innocent enough, informative even. What’s so bad about that?   

The way his story was framed in class was the issue. Former President Donald Trump was equated with white nationalism many times in the book, as well as in class. When we discussed the book, questions were framed in a way that implied that the teachings of the class were unequivocally true, and we were simply being enlightened.  

That was the pattern for every class I attended. We would presuppose that what our material was teaching was true, and we would discuss how true it was.   

Each class amounted to a new sermon on leftist theology. The professor tasked us with consuming some form of leftist media and commenting on it. The list of suggested content contained works such as the documentary “Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement” and podcasts such as “Intersectionality Matters” and “The Diversity Gap Podcast: Unlearning Racism in a Community of Practice.”   

Our professor also had us read the book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir,” written by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter. The book details how America is supposedly controlled by white privilege and racism, as viewed through the lens of the author’s own personal anecdote.   

Each week, we would have a discussion about what we read. The majority of people would just rattle off diatribes about systemic racism or one of the many other buzzwords that have become so popular with the Left.   

My problem with the content had nothing to do with learning about it per se, but with how it was presented as the “capital T” Truth, and how no one could challenge it. Since I needed a good grade, I held my tongue, lest I dare to speak out against the liberal orthodoxy and incur its wrath on my GPA.   

That was until the very last class, when we were called upon to give some “constructive criticism” of the class.   

I was glad to provide it. Of course, my classmates—who were more than willing to engage passively with course material, apparently because they believed it—did not take this well. The class was a breeze for them, since they intuitively knew the so-called answers.  

Meanwhile, I was forced to find inventive ways of completing assignments that didn’t involve me outright lying about my political affiliations.   

The fact that American University would require all its students to take these courses sequentially over two semesters and be graded on their adherence to leftist orthodoxy calls into question how “American” it really is.

There’s nothing American about forcing critical race theory and neo-Marxism down students’ throats. The university is simply undeserving of its own name. Even as a junior now, I still haven’t seen progress. I pray that it becomes worthy one day, but that day looks to be far away.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/24/american-university-requires-students-take-aux1-aux2aka-leftism-101-102

**********************************************

After Supreme Court Ruling, School District Will Reinstate Football Coach Fired for Praying

Coach Joe Kennedy is headed back to the high school football field, eight years after he lost his job for praying on the gridiron.  

Kennedy won his religious liberty case before the Supreme Court in June after a long legal battle. The fight began in 2015, when the Bremerton School District in Washington state outside of Seattle did not rehire Kennedy after he refused to stop praying at the 50-yard line after games.   

On Tuesday, Kennedy and the Bremerton School District submitted a joint stipulation to a federal district court in Washington agreeing that Kennedy would be reinstated as a coach.  

“Kennedy is to be reinstated to his previous position as assistant coach of the Bremerton High School football team on or before March 15, 2023,” the agreement reads.  

The Bremerton School District said in a statement that it has agreed with Kennedy to give him his job back, and that “Kennedy will be able to pray.”  

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Kennedy said all he ever wanted “was to be back on the field with my guys.”   

The justices ruled 6-3 in Kennedy’s favor, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing in the majority opinion that the “Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal.”

The agreement between Kennedy and the school district is no surprise, since it’s “always been inevitable that Coach would return to the field after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that his practice of praying on the field after a game is consistent with the Constitution,” said Jeremy Dys, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute, a nationwide legal organization protecting religious liberty that represented Kennedy.  

The school district says it will “not interfere with or prohibit Kennedy from offering a prayer consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion,” but notes that Kennedy and the school district are in disagreement over some of the wording the Supreme Court issued on the issue of prayer.  

The court agreement also states that the “parties disagree on the specific wording of the declaratory relief.”

“We are eager to resolve the remaining questions and look forward to having Coach back on the field on or before March 15, 2023,” Dys said, referring to the disagreements over the interpretation of the court’s wording.  

The school district and Kennedy have until Nov. 8 to submit their “proposed wording on the disputed issues” to the court, at which time the court will then make a decision on the issues under disagreement.  

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/27/supreme-court-ruling-school-district-will-reinstate-football-coach-fired-praying

******************************************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************