Connect with us

Featured

SCOTUS Rules Colleges and Universities MUST STOP Affirmative Action

SCOTUS Rules Colleges and Universities MUST STOP Affirmative Action

(ConcernedPatriot.com) – The use of race as a bases for college admission was rejected as a breach of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court in a significant decision on affirmative action.

Although opponents of the action, such as the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, claim it discriminates against many qualified applicants based on race, many universities have contended that race-based admissions guarantee that student populations stay diverse.

An active student group called Students for Fair Admissions filed lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance,” is what the group first accused Harvard College of breaking in 2014.

According to the complaint against Harvard, the university failed to use racial-neutral processes, and its policies punished Asian American students.

The North Carolina case brought up the question of whether a university could forbid the adoption of non-racial activities without demonstrating that doing so would degrade the institution’s academic standards or harm the advantages of campus diversity.

The decision of a district court bench trial had been upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Harvard.

According to the district court, “the observed discrimination” only affected a tiny group of Asian American students, and the evidence against Harvard was unclear. It concluded that SFFA lacked standing to bring the claim.

Due to her prior membership on the Board of Overseers of Harvard, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson withdrew from the Harvard case.

In the UNC case, a federal district court upheld the university’s position, finding that its admissions procedures stood up to close examination.

In the affirmative action cases, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito interrogated Harvard’s attorney, Seth Waxman, in one of the most animated court disputes inside the Supreme Court building this past term.

Waxman was questioned by Alito on why Asian American applicants frequently obtain lower personal scores than applicants of other races. Waxman’s avoidance of the justice’s inquiries led to Alito’s annoyance with the attorney.

For the gap between the personal scores given to Asians, Alito observed, “I still haven’t heard any explanation.”

Waxman and Roberts then engaged in a tense back-and-forth. The judge questioned why Waxman was downplaying race as a deciding factor in admissions when, in Roberts’ view, “it must have some bearing, or it wouldn’t be included.”

Waxman acknowledged that “for some highly qualified applicants,” such as “being… an oboist in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboist,” race was a deciding factor.”

Roberts retorted, “We did not fight a civil war over oboe players. “We did wage a civil war to end racial prejudice.”

This is a developing story.

Copyright 2023, ConcernedPatriot.com

Continue Reading

Featured

Democrat Mayor Welcomes Illegals to Denver

after-barriers-were-placed-dozens-migrants

During a recent interview with CNBC, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s comments regarding the city’s approach to immigration underscore a troubling trend of prioritizing the interests of migrants over the well-being of American citizens.

Johnston’s admission that Denver is grappling with an influx of migrants is a damning indictment of the city’s failed open-door policies. Rather than acknowledging the inherent risks and challenges associated with unchecked migration, Johnston attempts to portray Denver’s approach as a delicate balancing act between compassion and pragmatism. However, his words betray a dangerous naivety that threatens to undermine the safety and prosperity of Denverites.

By championing an ideology of unlimited hospitality, Denver has effectively placed the burden of its misguided altruism squarely on the shoulders of its own citizens. Johnston’s assertion that the city is proud of its ability to manage the migrant crisis is not only arrogant but also deeply troubling. Instead of celebrating the city’s failure to control its borders, Denver should be prioritizing the needs and concerns of its own residents.

Johnston’s plea for federal assistance serves as a thinly veiled attempt to absolve Denver of its responsibility for the consequences of its reckless immigration policies. It is outrageous that hardworking taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the city’s misguided generosity. Denverites should not be forced to accept cuts to city budgets and services in order to accommodate migrants who enter the country illegally.

Furthermore, Johnston’s insistence on portraying migrants as victims deserving of unwavering support only serves to exacerbate the problem. By perpetuating the myth of the noble migrant in need of rescue, Johnston glosses over the very real dangers and disruptions caused by uncontrolled immigration. Denverites deserve better than a mayor who prioritizes virtue signaling over their safety and prosperity.

It is time for Johnston and other proponents of open borders to face the harsh reality of their policies. Unrestricted immigration poses serious threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability. Denver cannot continue down this reckless path without risking irreparable harm to its own citizens.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative that Denver enact sensible immigration policies that prioritize the needs and interests of American citizens. This includes strengthening border security, enforcing immigration laws, and implementing measures to deter illegal immigration. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in Johnston by the people of Denver.

 

Illegals Get the VIP Treatment from Biden's DHS!

POLL: Should American cities welcome illegals?

 

Continue Reading

Featured

Texas Dem. Rep: No Taxes For Black Americans

phrase-reparations-black-community-on-banner

In a recent episode of the “Black Lawyers Podcast,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, ignited a firestorm of controversy with her proposal to exempt Black Americans from paying taxes as a form of reparations. This suggestion has triggered widespread outrage among conservatives, who see it as yet another attempt to further racialize American politics and deepen divisions within society.

Crockett’s proposition, which she herself admitted may not be successful due to the fact that many within the Black community are already struggling financially and may not be paying taxes, has been met with condemnation from conservative voices across the country. Critics argue that such a plan would not only be ineffective in addressing the underlying issues faced by Black Americans but would also exacerbate racial tensions and perpetuate a victimhood narrative.

By singling out one racial group for special treatment through tax exemptions, Crockett’s proposal threatens to further polarize an already divided nation along racial lines. Conservatives view this as yet another example of the left’s obsession with identity politics, where race takes precedence over individual merit and personal responsibility.

Moreover, Crockett’s suggestion of tax exemptions as a form of reparations is seen as deeply misguided and unfair. Conservatives argue that reparations, if they are to be considered at all, should be based on need and merit, rather than race. By proposing blanket tax exemptions based solely on race, Crockett fails to address the complex socioeconomic factors that contribute to inequality and disadvantage in America.

Conservatives also express concern about the lack of consistency and coordination between federal and state approaches to reparations. Crockett’s call for tax exemptions at the federal level raises questions about how such measures would interact with existing state-level initiatives, potentially leading to confusion and inequity in the distribution of resources.

As the debate over reparations continues to intensify, conservatives are calling for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach that focuses on addressing the root causes of inequality and promoting economic opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. Crockett’s proposal, they argue, only serves to further entrench racial divisions and undermine efforts to achieve genuine unity and progress in the United States.

 

mumbai-india-14-jan-2021-selective

POLL: Should the federal government exempt black Americans from taxes?

Continue Reading

Featured

Whoopi Goldberg Claims Conservatives Want to “Bring Back Slavery”

new-york-ny-october-28-whoopi

In a recent episode of ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg stirred controversy with her startling claim that some Republicans are inclined to “bring slavery back.” The comment, made during a discussion about the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate an 1864 abortion ban, has sparked widespread condemnation, with critics lambasting Goldberg for her inflammatory and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Goldberg’s assertion, delivered in the heat of the panel discussion, has been roundly denounced as not only inflammatory but also deeply irresponsible. By equating Republican policies on abortion with a desire to resurrect one of the darkest chapters in American history, Goldberg not only demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues at hand but also showcased a troubling disregard for reasoned discourse.

Conservative voices have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of Goldberg’s remarks, highlighting the egregious nature of her comparison and the harm it does to meaningful dialogue. They argue that such hyperbolic and baseless accusations only serve to further polarize an already divided political landscape, making it increasingly difficult to find common ground on important issues.

Moreover, critics have pointed out the dangerous precedent set by Goldberg’s rhetoric, warning of the potential consequences of allowing such inflammatory statements to go unchallenged. They argue that by indulging in sensationalism and distortion, Goldberg not only does a disservice to the public discourse but also undermines the credibility of her own platform.

In the wake of the controversy, Goldberg has faced mounting pressure to retract or clarify her remarks, with many calling on her to apologize for the offense caused. However, as of yet, Goldberg has remained steadfast in her position, offering no indication of contrition or acknowledgment of the harm caused by her words.

Goldberg’s comments are part of a greater problem in American media and politics: One where conservative Americans are routinely demonized for their beliefs without consequence. This rhetoric should alarm all patriotic Americans interested in the free and honest discussion of ideas and politics.

 

POLL: Do you think conservatives want to bring back slavery?

 

Continue Reading

Trending