‘Color-Blind’ Supreme Court Bars Consideration Of Race In College Admissions

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to consider race in university admissions.

In Thursday’s 6-3 decision (along ideological lines), the justices rejected arguments by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina that their admissions programs are warranted to ensure campus diversity.

The high court majority effectively overturned a 2003 decision, known as Grutter v. Bollinger, that had reaffirmed the right of universities to consider race as one of many admissions factors.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said that ruling “is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.”

As The Wall Street Journal reports, the ruling will force a reworking of admissions criteria throughout American higher education, where for decades the pursuit of diversity has been an article of faith.

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court just ruled that university admissions programs that use affirmative action and other race-based admissions criteria are unconstitutional and violate the 14th Amendment. Roberts wrote the opinion. https://t.co/k5ZBSlUh12 pic.twitter.com/Yf5ReefNVY— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 29, 2023

Specifically, The 14th Amendment ensures that individuals receive equal protection of the laws from state agencies including public universities, a standard that also applies to most private colleges that receive federal funding.

More…

    
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Truth in Tension
Truth in Tension
1 year ago

Affirmative action was always government discrimination against White people. Who is $ John Galt?

Lawnmore
Lawnmore
1 year ago

I must of missed the part in the constitution where it enshrines diversity, inclusion and equity, oh well. It is great to hear more good news from the Supreme Court, I hope they can keep it up, they just might save the Republic

Nolan Parker
Nolan Parker
1 year ago

The problem isn’t Diversity. It’s Diversity for the Sake of Diversity. Diversity is not a benefit, in and of itself. If, in the process of testing, the people who score the highest just happen to have differences in race,creed,color, whatever,, okay,, the Qualification Process is the same for everyone. The most qualified are accepted. Excluding someone who tested and passed Because they Are Diverse is wrong. Opposing Diversity and denying people a spot they have proven they deserve is what we should not do. Embracing and promoting someone because of their skin color or anything Other than MERIT is nonsense. None of that should need said. It’s like when Prejucial Discrimination was first, and Rightly, brought into the public discussion on race. Well, over time, Prejudicial got dropped and it became Wrong to discriminate.. Doesn’t matter Why, you either Choose the oppressed minority or you’re a racist.

JoCo Marine
JoCo Marine
1 year ago

The real question here, is the 14th Ammendment legit to beigin with? The 13th ammendment was lawfully ratified 1865. It took almost 2 years before the 14th took affect. If the argument is upholding the Constitution then every aspect of it has to be looked at.

Hans
Hans
1 year ago
Reply to  JoCo Marine

Two “must have” references if you want definitive answers about the legitimacy of the 14th …

“The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment” by Joseph B James, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1956.

“The Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment” by Joseph B James, Mercer University Press, 1984.

They are difficult to find but occasionally are available through used book sellers or brokers (e.g. AbeBooks.com) … Currently AbeBooks lists several copies of The Framing and one copy of The Ratification.

JoCo Marine
JoCo Marine
1 year ago
Reply to  Hans

The Constitution, clearly spells out how the the ammendment process is to be carried out. And that process was not carried out at all. Several constititutional violations occured during that period that led to the so called “ratification” of the 14th Ammendment. John Ainsworth of America’s Remedy has done extensive reasearch on the subject also. And to my knowledge noone has been able to dispute his arguement. NC Renegades used to post alot about America’s Remedy, not so much anymore. There have been so many court cases brought on by the marxist left that reference the 14th Ammendment that makes whatever they are trying to peddle legal. SCOTUS takes an opinion on those cases then 50 years later SCOTUS offers an opposite opinion on the same subject that further exploits the psycosis of the general public.
Thanks for your book suggestions. I will try and find them. Not sure the postion the auther takes but, it is hard pressed for someone to argue for the 14th Ammendment when the opponent knows the Constitiution and Truthful history.

Michael
Michael
1 year ago
Reply to  DRenegade

Nice to see you back DRenegade.

Missed your often wise comments.

JoCo Marine
JoCo Marine
1 year ago
Reply to  DRenegade

He is! I would love to meet him one day. Maybe somehow we could motivate him to publish his book. I would gladly donate to the cause.

Hans
Hans
1 year ago
Reply to  JoCo Marine

Sorry I didn’t clearly state author Joseph James’ conclusion … the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified.

Yes, John Ainsworth is very persuasive. I spent time in discussions with John about a decade ago. However he never presented a thorough documentation of the “shenanigans” employed during the Framing (first book reference). Nor did he ever follow through with publication of his personal research and recommendations (as David noted above).

John’s allegation stands … ALL legislation (whether it be in the form of statute, ordinance or regulation) based on and derived from the 14th Amendment is null and void.

JoCo Marine
JoCo Marine
1 year ago
Reply to  Hans

No worries! I have never met John, like I said above would love to be able too.
I have watched just about everyone of his videos. I what feable reasearch I have done personally, mainly digging through the State’s online Archives repository, I have confirmed John’s assertaions namley the impeachment trial of Gov. Holding where the prosections state that current state gov’t derives it power from the Federal Gov’t. The gov was appointed and not elected.
from the NC State Archives….
“Holden had been nominated for governor as a candidate of the Republican Party when it met in convention in February, 1868, and he was elected with a majority of fifty-five percent of the votes cast over the Conservative candidate. ^° North Carolina, however, was still controlled by the commander of the military district of North and South Carolina created by the Congressional Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, although it had met all of the requirements of that legislation but one; Holden, therefore, was “appointed” governor by General E. R. S. Canby who also removed Gov. Jonathan Worth, and Holden took the oath of office on July 1 , 1 868.^^ On July 2 the General Assembly, which had been called into session a day earlier, ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and North Carolina was eligible for readmission to the Federal Union.^^” 

Quatermain
Quatermain
1 year ago

Want to bet that the big corporations and the Fed Gov will state that the decision does not affect them or their hiring practices???t