RSS
In theory, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In practice, it was, like Steven Farron predicted on this website, a “catastrophe.” In essence, the Supreme Court told employers, colleges, and other institutions that want to racially discriminate against whites and Asians that they simply need to disguise their intensions a bit more. It also did nothing to challenge the idea that “diversity” is a compelling state interest that justifies abolishing the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, asking Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucrats for subtlety is probably still too much. The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Virginia, was once a prestigious magnet school for the gifted. However, high standards for academic institutions are de facto illegal in America. They will necessarily cause a “disparate impact” because not enough blacks and Hispanics will be able to gain admission.
In 2012, various “civil rights” groups filed a lawsuit against the school, alleging discrimination. There was coverage from the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, CNN, and others. The federal government’s Department of Civil Rights dutifully opened an investigation. By 2020, the school changed its admissions policy, including scrapping a standardized test. Not surprisingly, the school admitted fewer Asians.
In 2022, the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Coalition for TJ sued on behalf of Asians. “Conservatives Open New Front in Elite School Admission Wars,” was the way the New York Times framed it. A judge initially sided with the plaintiffs, but an appeals court threw out that decision. “We are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students and the Coalition cannot establish that the Board adopted its race-neutral policy with any discriminatory intent,” it said. This is the main reason why the Appeals Court approved the new admissions policy. It also said that the school’s policy didn’t have a “disparate impact” because most of the students at the school were still Asian, though significantly fewer than were admitted under the old standards.
Of course, the assumption that a policy is legal if it didn’t have “discriminatory intent” does not apply in most other contexts, which is why the mere finding that an objective test leads to a “disparate impact” results in institutions being held liable if not enough blacks or Hispanics benefit. Indeed, Grigg v. Duke Power (1971) explicitly found that a “disparate impact” makes something illegal even if there is no intent to discriminate. Chief Justice Earl Warren Burger wrote:
We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer’s intent; but good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as “built-in headwinds” for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.
The Company’s lack of discriminatory intent is suggested by special efforts to help the undereducated employees through Company financing of two-thirds the cost of tuition for high school training. But Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.
The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices, as well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees.
Not surprisingly, the Appeals Court didn’t reference that decision. Perhaps the judges don’t know about it; more likely, they just don’t care. The truth is that applying disparate impact doctrine in this case would benefit the wrong group. Therefore, it was not applied.
If the Supreme Court really wanted to enforce its own decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, it would take up the appeal of the Thomas Jefferson High School case. However, it refused to do so without explanation. The Court also refused to stop West Point from discriminating based on race in its own admissions policy. The Washington Post quoted an expert who said the Court is “where the American public is,” because the people don’t want racial preferences, but want diversity.
The solution to this quandary is what the Court has done — allow racial preferences to achieve diversity, but don’t admit it. It’s unclear if the people truly want diversity, but many in our political, social, and media elite would not have careers without set-asides and diversity programs. Therefore, they will remain. Too many powerful people have too much to lose, regardless of the law.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent against the decision to refuse to hear the case. Justice Clarence Thomas joined it. “What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe,” Justice Alito said. “This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction.” However, since the Court won’t do it, from whence will it come?
Justice Alito noted that “a factually discriminatory policy is automatically subject to heightened review,” even if is “race neutral on its face.” We might not like it, but this is the law, and it has transformed the way American institutions operate. According to Justice Alito, the District Court “noted the stark change effected by the new policy, the unusual decision-making process that led to the change, and the fact that the change bore ‘more heavily on’ Asian Americans than members of other groups.” In contrast, the Fourth Circuit court “completely distorted the meaning of disparate impact.” “As far as the Fourth Circuit was concerned, the Board could have adopted a policy designed solely to reduce the Asian-American offer rate and still evaded liability,” he said.
He posited a hypothetical case where a majority black basketball team in a majority white school district is forced to replace members of the team in the interests of diversity. If we accept the Circuit Court’s ruling, Justice Alito said, this would be allowed. “I cannot imagine this Court’s sustaining such discrimination,” he said, “but in principle there is no difference between that imaginary case and the one now before us.”
Of course, there is such a difference. The difference is that blacks are conscious of themselves as a collective group with interests, vote and politically mobilize based on those interests, and work to fill the legal system with judges who feel the same way. Whites do not. It’s difficult to imagine the Court undermining black collective interests in any case, whatever the law says, because justices would pay a collective price.
It’s perhaps not coincidental that Justice Clarence Thomas is currently under media attack, notably by late-night host John Oliver, who offered to pay the justice to resign his seat. This actually is a crime, especially because John Oliver said “I am not joking,” yet we simply take for granted that the law does not apply to him. Comedy didn’t apply when it came to the case of Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, on Twitter.
Justice Alito warned:
In addition, the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning is a virus that may spread if not promptly eliminated. Indeed, the First Circuit has already favorably cited the Fourth Circuit’s analysis to disparage the use of a before-and-after comparison in a similar equal protection challenge to a facially neutral admissions policy.
Yet this is precisely the point. “The Court’s willingness to swallow the aberrant decision below is hard to understand,” said Justice Alito. It is not. It is precisely because it allows a way for institutions to keep using affirmative action without making it too blatant that the other justices do not want to confront it. It is precisely because it will “spread” that it was permitted to stand.
If the Supreme Court told institutions that they could not racially discriminate to achieve diversity, many powerful interests would challenge the legitimacy of the Court itself. Therefore, the Court is not picking this fight. Law has little power in itself; political will matters more. Racial consciousness is the most powerful political force in the world today. Therefore, the side with greater racial consciousness wins, regardless of whether “conservatives” or “liberals” have a theoretical majority on the Supreme Court.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Intentions Greg, not intensions, also put a capital W on White.
” Racial consciousness is the most powerful political force in the world today. Therefore, the side with greater racial consciousness wins, regardless of whether “conservatives” or “liberals” have a theoretical majority on the Supreme Court.”
Truer words were never written.
“Diversity” is disaster.
Why should anyone, any institution, take SCOTUS as the last word? I am always a little amazed at folks who think there exists in the US a set ‘rule of law’ that everyone has to follow… simply because it is the law.
If federal, state and local governments, along with private institutions follow the Constitution and legislation it is only because of inertia from the past. In reality all of that has been essentially abandoned.
To even argue in such a way seems naive, and certainly pretty much misses the point of our current situation. We live in the ‘rules based order’, which means whatever Jews and their Anglo running dogs (not to mention their sometimes out of control negroes) want it to mean.
Says who? The two are mutually exclusive and you can’t have one without the other in the context of workplaces, universities and high schools with admissions policies.
The Fourth Circuit just stood the SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action on its head. This was another Who, Whom? decision by a federal court. Since Asians are the target of discrimination and are only 5% of the population and (like whites) are lower on the racial pecking order the discrimination against them can stand. But if blacks or Latinos brought the very same suit the Fourth Circuit would have ruled in their favor since they are higher in the racial pecking order and have a greater claim to victimhood.
This isn’t law this is ideology and politics and why dozens of federal judges should be thrown off the bench and put in prison.
SCOTUS has been all over the map on race based discrimination that hurt whites. Even Scalia said it was ok as long as it was “narrowly tailored” not to hurt whitey too much. The recent SCOTUS ruling struck down affirmative action but allowed it at military academies.
So we know that if a policy is neutral on its face and has no intent to discriminate against blacks and browns it gets shot down in court anyway. But if a policy is neutral and has no intent to discriminate but adversely impacts whites and Asians and benefits blacks and browns then that policy will be upheld.
And this is why White people need a mass based activist organization to promote their interests.
Said organization could conduct protest marches, street theater, alternative media, sit-ins and so forth to put the heat on institutions which promote de facto affirmative action. Lawsuits against anti-White discrimination are a positive move, but they are not enough. The courtroom is but one front in a wider struggle which encompasses the classroom, the school boards, the HR departments…and the streets.
Such an organization would also channel the efforts of many White people into productive, real world activism which would throw the civil rights regime onto the defensive, especially in its own power bases (especially the campuses!). And once White people have seized the initiative, there is no stopping until final victory.
Consider how much impact the Alt Right/Dissident Right has had as largely an online movement. Then think IRL White student unions, White labor syndicates, White gamer networks.
It’s entirely feasible, provided there is the leadership…and funding.
In the Harvard case, near the very end of the majority opinion, the court dealt with sneaky work-arounds. The court admonished, with a no-nonsense rap on the knuckles: You can’t do indirectly that which is illegal directly. Wow! Way to go! But they did not stop there. What followed was the part where the court left the door open.The court furnished the secret sauce, writing: “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
In sum, Scotus anticipated cases like Jefferson, and gave itself a way of declining such cases. Scotus thus accomplished the twin goals of keeping affirmative action alive – – the secret-sauce way – – and, reducing its own future workload.
Jews are the most tribal people on the planet. That’s how they took over the U.S. despite being just 2% of the population. If we whites became tribal like the Jews are, the Jews would be the first to shriek, “White nationalists! Nazis! Anti-Semites.”
Frozen pizzas of the “supreme” variety — lots of toppings…pepperoni, ham, sausage, extra cheese…etc. — should be eaten in moderation with an eye on keeping a proper balance between calories consumed and calories expended.
However,
THE US SUPREME COURT MUST BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY
Black-robed devil dog judges are destroying the United States. I don’t care if it’s the 9th Circuit Court or the ruling class puppet scum on the US Supreme Court. This gives me a chance to use a word I have never used before: KRITARCHY. Now I’ll use it in a sentence: The evil ruling class rats who mismanage the American Empire use the illegitimate power of kritarchy to give their corrupt totalitarian system some thin veneer of legality.
The US Supreme Court is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States.
The answer to US Supreme Court attacks upon the European Christian ancestral core of the United States is to IMPEACH every one of those bastards. Impeach and repeat till the US Supreme Court has its fangs and claws taken away.
The US Constitution croaked many decades ago.
I ain’t got no devotion to the dead and defunct US Constitution as it is currently interpreted and operated by the treasonous ruling class rodents or their devil dog puppet judges.
The Founding Fathers — almost all of whom were of English Protestant blood — would be amazed at the anti-White and anti-Christian actions of our so-called “constitutional” system.
IT’S OKAY TO ABOLISH THE US SUPREME COURT
Speaking of discrimination, this ruling is heartening!
—–
Prosecution of Far-Right but Not Antifa for Same Riots ‘Constitutionally Impermissible’: Judge
The judge found that the government ’selectively prosecuted’ two far-right men but not far-left rioters for acts of violence at the same event.
By Caden Pearson
2/22/2024
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/prosecution-of-far-right-but-not-antifa-for-same-riots-constitutionally-impermissible-judge-5592389
At this point, the best hope is for the Ivies to fill up with blacks and incompetents and discredit themselves.
Also, it makes no sense to defend Asians when they want to go to good schools to join the system and be anti-white at the feet of Jewish overlords.
The Civil Rights era literally killed this country. We live in a completely insane society that has no future.
There are organizations like that, the FBI create that all the time.
Young males immersed in fight/flight fevers only have around 60% of their faculties available for ‘book learning’. It has always been thus.
That definitely is not the difference. The idea that blacks have agency like this is crazy. Somebody is doing all that organizing, though.
It’s not just that we don’t happen to live under the rule of law, it is that the rule of law is an incoherent, idiotic concept to start with. Men rule; laws do not. When someone starts babbling about the rule of law, they are trying to hide who is ruling.
It would be interesting to program AI with the U.S. Constitution — plus all the House, Senate and state legislative debates that took place when the Constitution was amended (to show legislative intent) — and find out how it would rule as compared to SCOTUS.
I have little doubt that we’d have much better rulings. The legal profession is in the business of obfuscating, not pursuing the truth.
They do this every time they side with “undocumented” aliens. This does great damage to blacks on the ground. But black leadership is even more corrupt and traitorous than white leadership. The average black is either too stupid or too incurious to see this for himself.
“Black collective interests” are a joke. Only a small, corrupt élite benefits. Basically Liberia West.
“Hispanics” may be even worse.
“They do this every time they side with “undocumented” aliens. This does great damage to blacks on the ground.”
Many or most blacks already know this, but they don’t care, and welcome it because they also know that illegal aliens always harm whites far more than they harm blacks. (Illegals taking low-end jobs away from blacks? Pfft, who cares — blacks never planned to work anyway. Dey is KANGZ!!) And as with Jews and pajeets, their Prime Directive always is to Harm Whitey.
In other words, “identity politics” does great harm to the Other, but with no discernable benefit for the nominal beneficiaries. Other than a corrupt sliver of them. What white folks are supposed to get out of taking this route themselves is never spelled out. It would help if such “white advocates” would point to any victories they’ve achieved on the ground. But they want the rest of us do do their work for them.
Tribalism works best in narrow, well-defined places such as Norway, Iceland, and Slovakia, all of which got their independence through peaceful means. Oh, and being homogeneous helps. And noticeably different from those you’re seceding from. None of this is true in America.
Some mention on comment nine Charles, right points though ‘courts scheme came from those behind monotheism, then, to push paper law scheme here, initialy claimed ‘courts would have ‘no purse or sword’, no force, only arbiters if people chose, but it was bait, to then scribble themselves as dicators. Same as ‘constitution’, scheme by cons. Their other part, ‘money and ‘miltiary and ‘police, to protect themselves, ‘state and ‘courts schemers. Supposed ‘police’ have no duty to protect the public, search. ‘courts would be nothing without ‘sheriff cons or ‘police. If look at faces, ignore bogus ‘badges and costumes, they’re con faces including females. Can screen capture photos, put in windows paint, paint ‘white dots’ off eyes from bogus lighting, swipe grey over background, then look again. This as people ignore defending themselves, or territory.
Note that per scheme to let some trepass, they scrawled ‘case law premise on – necessary defense, meaning if there is no other option to defend self or stop a wrong, including in social good, could claim defense to break their paper law. On one hand would have to defend against whatever ‘state cons claimed as criminal act, so more ‘courts bs, but, if people used the premise or what is really natural right or law, to shut down ‘courts and ‘police, then of course ‘state cons couldn’t ‘charge’ anything or wouldn’t have force. Would have to get the drones to really shut anything down but point is, its about natural right or law. Their paper law scheme on nec defense, I’ve seen ‘appeal court’ cons apply to one individual who I know was in cabal, and refuse to apply to someone else who wasnt, though did exact same thing. And happens all the time. The problem with paper law, is those who claim to be ‘judges’ decide, everything, including who has defense or not. Bottom line, natural law, effort is rule, or who has the weapons..
Its mistake assuming ‘supreme cons as ‘highest anything, when highest is – to be ourselves, per natural right or law as we once lived. The supreme cons refuse to enforce, because they are a false front. Though there should be no ‘judges other than ourselves, one who was worth the label, judge Richard Posner, said he had no use for the supreme court, labeled them a ‘political body’. Posner was one of the few who said something about judges abusing unrepresented litigants. Someday everyone will be both.
‘robes’ are costumes.
Appreciate the article.
Just to note: the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, cannot enforce anything — a court is not an entity with any enforcement power — nominally, it is the responsibility of other institutions, including and especially government institutions, to either comply with or enforce court decisions, both in letter and in spirit, as part of the ‘rule of law.’
Regarding affirmative action in admissions, in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling many schools dropped the requirement that students submit standard test scores — obviously, this eliminates the quantitative measure most often used to detect racial preferences — this decision, while not in any way illegal, was clearly not in keeping with the spirit (if not the letter) of any possible future decision against racial preferences.
As to the letter of any such ruling, as this article suggests, regarding affirmative action in academic admissions there is effectively no letter of the law — that is a complicated and tangled issue involving the freedom of schools to establish their own criteria for admissions, one which will be very difficult to unravel in the courts — as the issue of free speech shows, when there is no longer the will to comply with the spirit of something, a lot has already been lost.
Whites appear to have lost control of both the media and institutions within their own country — it is hard to see a political or judicial solution to that problem.
Thanks for the helpful distinction. Here’s how it’s been mechanized:
• The judicial defers to the executive, supplants the legislative, and sanctifies the Establishment’s governance.
• The executive implements the Establishment’s governance via undeclared war and domestic orders.
• The legislative defers to both the judicial and executive, pretending to oversee by holding confirmation hearings and other pillow fights and enacting as necessary bills written by others on behalf of the Establishment and its actual constituents.
Not branches, but three hands washing each other and drying off with the Constitution. Which has kept most people complacent enough to await the next Most Important Election Ever, when they get to pick a Red or Blue crayon to color between the lines.
>But they want the rest of us do do their work for them.
No one is asking you to do anything, except maybe keep your fucking mouth shut — you know, maybe not shit on the idea of white identity, which is likely to only discourage psychologically vulnerable Whites, already conditioned by decades of scapegoating anti-racism propaganda, from simply taking their own side.
>What white folks are supposed to get out of taking this route themselves
Yeah, it’s much better to continue surrendering their country to hostile racial aliens and fifth columnists, rather than attempt to organize and resist when the outcome is uncertain.
As ought to be obvious by now, multi-racialism has pretty much made ideological politics in America obsolete (e.g. non-whites vote as a block for Democrats, in nearly all cases overwhelmingly so) — so whatever its concrete effects in the future might be, whatever ‘white folks are supposed to get out of taking this route themselves’, it is much better for Whites to at least recognize their racial commonality, as well as the fact they have common interests as a racial group — even perhaps to begin pursuing their collective self-interest on whatever occasions and by whatever means present themselves.
When I click on your moniker, I see you spend a lot of time commenting on posts by that ideologically vacuous faggot Steve Sailer, and, well, alles klar — ‘birds of a feather’, as they say.
As do two out of five whites. Who run the party. They are working in their “collective self-interest”. There’s your problem.
With Joe Biden, Sam Brinton, Jim Obergefell, Kevin Barrett (who did the most wigger thing imaginable), Dylann Roof, Justin Trudeau, Vicente Fox, Aleksandr Lukashenko, Ramzan Kadyrov, the Brady Campaign, the Human Rights Campaign, Antifa… Sorry if we’re not inspired.
Which you have been doing for years. Yet are somehow threatened by a request to report your progress.
Well, how is your own White People’s Party coming along?
Resistance to “ideology” is an Anglo-Saxon trait– read Russell Kirk or James Burnham. You’re paying him a compliment.
As for “faggot”, Steve is married with grown sons. I won’t ask about you. But champions of “white identity” have to explain the most starkly white map in the world.
I’m a hardcore White Nationalist, and there’s a reason for that — I don’t need a milquetoast cuck like you, or anyone else, to describe the problem to me — I’m very familiar with the problem and its seriousness — that means all aspects of it, including e.g. white support for the abomination of faggot marriage — I understand that the reason they hold DQSH in libraries is because that’s where the white kids are.
And faggot can be used both literally and figuratively, moron — so Sailer spends most of his life writing about human biological differences, including the fact they are rooted in genetic makeup and therefore irremediable, as well as all the problems this causes in white society, ‘the gap’ in academic achievement and SES between Blacks and Whites being only the most obvious, and still cannot bring himself to draw the appropriate and obvious conclusion: that ‘diversity’ is really bad for white people and white societies, and condemning white children to live with it via cowardly acquiescence equivalent to surrender is simply wrong — in this world, for a tribe it is rule or be ruled, and I want Whites to continue to rule in their own countries.
So yeah, Sailer is a (figurative) faggot, no matter how many kids he has — also because he doesn’t have the guts to call himself a civic nationalist — given the current racial reality for Whites in America and how this seems likely to develop, he knows this will be ridiculed — so being an effete intellectual poseur, instead he invents a laughable euphemism and calls himself an ‘anti-racist citizenist conservative’ — being unable or unwilling to make the obvious conclusion about ‘diversity’ and take a position on something as important as the future of your race isn’t anything to be proud of, or to emulate.
And his constant tone of ‘wry detachment’ is juvenile and tiresome.
>the current racial reality for Whites in America and how this seems likely to develop
link
It’s a disgrace that shit like this goes on in a country created and built by and for Whites, and that white kids have to attend schools run by hostile racial scum like this guy.
But we wouldn’t want to be too hasty and draw any conclusions about ‘diversity’ and whether a multiracial America is good for white people and their future.
That’s actually Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger. Quite confusing when his predecessor as US Chief Justice was named Earl Warren. From Earl Warren to Warren Earl Burger.
So what is your plan for making Mississippi an all-white state? It’s one of three that are actually whiter today than in 1940. That’s a good start. But how do we finish the job?
Maybe he isn’t any kind of “nationalist” at all. That’s just one more crackpot ideology made up by leftist goons of years past, like the metric system.
Anyway, why are you going on about Sailer, when a whole lot of other white columnists at this site are pouring their energy into mewling about the poor nonwhite Palestinians? Rag on them. Mohammedan Araby outnumbers white America 2-1, and controls more land than Canada or China, and these guys whine about the “genocide” of coloreds. Who’s the cuck here?
I’m pretty sure that this description of Mr. Sailer’s writing was first used in a comment under his December 3, 2017, post about an upcoming royal wedding. This can’t now be confirmed because his tone in that one was anything but, and the post and its comments were abruptly deleted.
My wife is Asian, but I generally have to agree with you.
I’ve experienced some real nasty treatment and comments ranging from disrespectful to vicious, at the hands, of Asian women in particular in LA and Orange counties, both in medical care and in the government (“public”) schools. Just as one example, one of our sons, a tall and white-looking boy, has been told “white people can’t be victims in hate crimes, shut the fuck up” by an Asian “girl.” Nothing like that arrogance and disdain from Mexican people overall, either here in LA or in Mexico, where we live part-time.
At least in Southern California — I can’t speak as well to the rest of the country — many Chinese and Korean people RAISED AND INDOCTRINATED HERE are no “model minorities.” They seem just as willfully ill-informed, knee-jerk in their views and bigoted reactions, and disdainful of white people.
The younger Asian-“americans”, especially, are just as ungrateful, disloyal, and brainwashed as any African-“american” to resent and hurt the founding and core European peoples and culture of this country. We know this well because we live in a heavily Asian neighborhood, have had numerous Chinese and Korean doctors (one of them wonderful), and our older kids are becoming fluent in Mandarin at an immersion school.
Asians or most other people should not be admitted to the USA long-term except for people who marry native-born US citizens; a very limited number of immigrants with exceptional hard-to-find skills in medicine, science or industry; and a very limited number of people acquiring citizenship through a truly large investment and substantial hiring of native-born US citizens in the USA.
Generally, non-Europeans not married to a native-born US citizen should be given at most permanent residence, not citizenship. They should be treated in a friendly welcoming and fair way if they follow our laws and contribute, of course. But they should not get the right to vote, hold political office, work as police officers, possess a gun, own residential rental property, own or lead media companies, donate to political candidates and parties and PACs, etc.