Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You
Simply ‘Wonderful’: Classic Holiday Film Reminds Generations It’s Okay to Cry at Christmas
A Lump of Coal in Her Stocking! Crypto Influencer Gets BURIED for Not...
Political Pivot? Many Question ‘Young Turk’ Cenk Uygur’s Sudden Willingness to Talk with...
'The View' Panelist Says Problem for Dems Is That Gov't Won't Regulate Social...
Man Vs. History: Bear Grylls Gets DROPPED by Community Notes for Awful Take...
Scott Jennings: Dem Party Must Flush the Fringe and Embrace Common Sense to...
HO HO OH LOL-NO! Leftist Mocked for Whining About the Midwest DAD We...
Bah Humbug! Dems Put Fetterman On The Naughty List
NewsGuard Rates the Headlines Covering Woman Set on Fire by Illegal
CNBC: Biden Administration Withdraws Student Loan Forgiveness Plans
'Mary Was An Earthworm:' J.K. Rowling Absolutely Roasts India Willoughby's Take on Christi...
University Employee Who Told Trump Supporters to Kill Themselves Sent Packing
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Still Pushing to Publish the Equal Rights Amendment With 'One...
Global Engagement Center for Countering 'Disinformation' Closing Down

Instapundit on the affirmative action decision: Higher Education has lost its credibility

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame has a new Substack column.

Advertisement

And in it, he picks up on something that we admit we missed earlier when doing a deep dive into the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College—the big affirmative action case decided today: The way higher education has lost all credibility with the Supreme Court.

First, we will remind you that the test applied to any kind of racial discrimination is known as the strict scrutiny test. That requires the entity attempting to justify the discrimination at issue to prove it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling purpose. It is a very difficult standard to meet and, in the vast majority of cases, the discriminator fails.

Reynolds points out that, previously, the Supreme Court didn’t actually apply that test in full:

Media accounts I’ve seen have tended to suggest that the Supreme Court had found that ‘diversity’ is a compelling interest, sufficient to justify overriding the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination. …

But the Supreme Court did not itself find that diversity was a compelling interest.  Rather, it deferred to universities’ claims that diversity was a compelling interest.  A court defers to someone else when it says that it may have a different opinion on the matter itself but it will allow the opinion of the person or entity in question to control because of their expertise.

In other words, the Supreme Court used to defer to schools on what counts as a compelling interest. Bluntly, in almost any other context that is unthinkable. But even in the last major Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court did exactly that:

Thus, for example, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court said:  ‘The Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.  The Law School’s educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer.’  (Italics mine). So diversity is a compelling interest only because the university says it is.

He goes on to quote today’s decision as saying that the decision today included the phrase ‘The universities’ main response to these criticisms is ‘trust us.’’ That used to be enough, but it no longer was. The Supreme Court was no longer willing to trust them.

Advertisement

And why doesn’t the Supreme Court trust them anymore? Reynolds offers some explanation:

But who trusts higher education anymore?  At the turn of the millennium, when Grutter was decided, American higher ed was at its zenith.  Since then a series of scandals – just today a famous ‘ethicist’ at Harvard was charged with fraudulent ethics research – has undermined its reputation for probity (and the Hollywood admissions scandal of a few years back certainly undermined the perceived integrity of its admissions process), even as everything else about universities came to seem less serious.  With 57 genders, coloring books and crying rooms for election results, endless crusades against ‘whiteness’ and ‘heterosexism,’ and the like, the notion of deferring to the educational seriousness and expertise of those in charge of the asylums of higher ed seemed much less appealing.  Whom the gods would destroy, they first make ridiculous.  But higher education has supplied the ridiculousness itself.

If anything, he is going easy on them. For instance, consider this story:

What the Tweeter and the story underlying it misses is that Roberts wasn’t complaining about the heckling of a Supreme Court justice, but actually the hecking of a lower court judge. He was imagining how his mentor, Judge Friendly (we swear, that is an actual name of a judge) would respond to recent events, saying:

There’s much in the legal arena that [Judge Friendly] would find abhorrent: [a] judge heckled and shouted down at a law school, protesters outside the homes of justices, to the extent that marshall protection is needed 24/7.

Supreme Court justices are just not called judges, so it is plain that he was referring to someone who isn’t a Supreme Court justice. He is most likely discussing this incident involving 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan where he was basically shouted down and could not give his presentation:

Advertisement

And of course, this is not the only example of leftists on campus trying to shout down their opposition:

And, of course, there is the ongoing scandal of Elizabeth Warren, widely believed to have benefitted from affirmative action based on false claims of Native American ancestry, an issue we mentioned earlier today. And academia has promoted transgender ideology that you can become whatever gender you want, just because you feel like a certain thing at a certain moment—thus becoming a member of a preferred group for affirmative action purposes. Or the time that the University of North Texas drove a professor out of her job because she correctly said that one could say the n-word under the First Amendment.

And if you want to see how wrong the academic community has gone on this, one need only go back to the first decision that endorsed affirmative action in college admissions, University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). It’s a complicated decision to pick through, but the opinion that wins the day was that by Justice Powell who argued to allow for diversity to be allowed as a compelling purpose. But Powell was arguing that issues such as racial preferences were only allowed as a means to the end of achieving intellectual diversity. And in doing so, he quoted positively from Harvard’s explanation on the value of diversity:

In practice, this new definition of diversity has meant that race has been a factor in some admission decisions. When the Committee on Admissions reviews the large middle group of applicants who are `admissible' and deemed capable of doing good work in their courses, the race of an applicant may tip the balance in his favor just as geographic origin or a life spent on a farm may tip the balance in other candidates' cases. A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.

Advertisement

So, the idea is to intentionally get many people from many different backgrounds, resulting in many different points of view being expressed, which sounds fine in theory.

Except it’s all a bad joke. Diversity of viewpoint at many universities usually adds up to ‘we will tolerate every viewpoint from radical leftism to Stalinism. From ‘tax the rich into poverty’ to ‘shoot the rich and drag their corpses through the streets.’’ They want lots of people from different backgrounds, different demographics and so on, all agreeing on the same leftist agenda.

Or look at how hollow all of that is in the case of Elizabeth Warren. She denounced the decision today…

…but she is a perfect example of how ridiculous the old regime was. Let’s pretend that her claim to native ancestry was genuine. Stop laughing, let’s play pretend. Has it made any difference in her life—except as a benefit? Was there any point in her life where someone discriminated against her for being Native American and she learned bitter lessons from that treatment? Or was she involved in Native American culture and could possibly bring that culture to Harvard Law school? As far as we know, the answer is ‘no’ on both counts. So, in what meaningful way did her being a Native America contribute to the intellectual diversity of the school? Seemingly, nothing.

But, hey, it allowed for Harvard to say they finally hired a woman of color and if you don’t think that mattered to the school, we have some rap albums from President Joe Biden and Senator John Fetterman to sell you.

Meanwhile, one only has to go on Twitter and search for the words ‘Uncle Tom’ to see thousands of liberals denouncing Clarence Thomas for today’s decision—despite the fact that even if he voted otherwise, the outcome would have been the same.

Advertisement

And please, dear reader, don’t report any of these racist tweets. Leave them up. Let the world see who they really are.

Just because Thomas was admitted at a time that Yale Law School gave black people a preference, doesn't mean he wouldn't have been admitted without it.

Advertisement

And why is Justice Thomas being called an Uncle Tom? Because they think all black people have to think alike—a view denounced in today’s decision:

But when a university admits students ‘on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that [students] of a particular race, because of their race, think alike[.]’ Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 … (1995).

Of course, the Supreme Court’s decision today couldn’t possibility have been influenced by the reaction to it. But this is hardly the first time Clarence Thomas has been called an Uncle Tom, or the first time someone in public life has suggested that one can judge the content of your character by the color of your skin. We doubt the Supreme Court was trying to ding President Biden in that passage above, but he has claimed that if you can’t figure out whether to vote for him, ‘you ain’t black.’

And he claimed that the black community is not diverse, compared to the Latino community:

So, while Joe Biden is easily the most explicitly racist president in this author’s lifetime (we are nearly 51 years old if you were wondering), he’s pretty typical for his party.

Finally, what also probably broke any and all respect this Court had for the Ivory Tower was the outright discrimination against Asians Americans in this case. This was apparently based on the view that Asian Americans didn’t face discrimination—unlike black people or Hispanics. This author is married to a lovely Asian woman, and we know for a fact Asian people do face discrimination—besides that committed against them under the guise of affirmative action. But Asian Americans have committed the cardinal sin of being too successful, despite the discrimination they face, so very often affirmative action programs add to that discrimination.

Advertisement

We’d love to say today that Asian Americans can now face a fair chance in college admissions—that everyone enjoys an equal opportunity—but we expect there to be resistance to this ruling. One might be tempted to quote Martin Luther King, Jr. describing his dream, but we would prefer to quote Thaddeus Stevens, who Fawn Brodie called the Father of the Fourteenth Amendment, when he said that it was his dream that under the Equal Protection Clause that ‘that no distinction would be tolerated in this purified Republic but what arose from merit and conduct.’

We are not there yet, but we have taken a massive step in the right direction—probably thanks to the hubris of modern higher education.

***

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement