Lawsuits filed Monday against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over racism, the suit argues that racist affirmative action policies should be banned at colleges across the nation.
The federal suits states that Harvard and UNC rely on discriminatory race-based affirmative action policies that discriminate admissions of high-achieving white and Asian American students. The Harvard lawsuit also contends that the Ivy League university specifically limits the number of Asian Americans it admits each year.
The Project on Fair Representation, an Alexandria, Virginia-based legal defense fund, said Monday’s filings will be the first in a series of legal challenges against colleges across the country in an effort to ban discriminatory race-based admission policies outright. Basing admissions on ones skin color is bringing the United States colleges back at least 100 years.
Students for Fair Admissions” as plaintiff, a nonprofit group based in Austin, Texas made up of recently rejected applicants, prospective students and parents. “Racial preferences are a dangerous tool.”
The lawsuit goes on to to expose that Harvard is engaging in “racial balancing,” enrolling the “essentially the same percentage” of African Americans, Hispanics, whites, and Asian Americans year after year, even though the application rates and qualifications for each racial group have undergone significant changes over time.
Harvard’s remarkably stable admissions and enrollment figures over time are the deliberate result of system wide intentional racial discrimination designed to achieve a predetermined racial balance of its student body,” the lawsuit states.
The concept of affirmative action is something just as bad as the racial discrimination that brought the Civil Rights Act into fruition in the first place. Indeed, instead of simply eradicating the horrors of segregation and racial superiority, today’s affirmative action has forced the concept of “racial proportionality” to such an extent that openly discriminating (like the WWU questionnaire) against Whites and Asians has become perfectly acceptable.
Not surprising it this racism is again perpetrated by the Democratic party, the same party that implemented Jim Crow laws, and slavery against blacks. Today blacks are not the targets of the Democrats racism, it is whites and Asians. When will the Democratic party with a long history of racism learn to just treat everyone as equals? Can liberals look past ones skin color, so far the answer is a big no!
Trying to solve the issues of racism from the past with racism today was a terrible idea by the leftist, as most their ideas are.
With the latest projections putting whites as a Minority in the USA by the year 2050, things need to change now. People thinking its okay to openly practice discrimination on others is a bad precedence, and a violation of one’s civil rights.
The question is why are still so fervently devoted to a program so plainly inadequate and ill-conceived from the start, Affirmative action is racist and does not solve anything. If you hair color is too light, a liberal thinks you have to test higher on an admittance score, this is wrong in so many ways and cannot be tolerated in modern society.
ONLY RACIST CONSIDER RACE!
The following are some of the significant cases in this area. They are offered as a start to understanding the issues, and are not intended as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from DOI’s Solicitor’s Office or private counsel. These summaries are intended neither as a legal analysis regarding specific matters, nor as a complete review of the topic.
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 2574 (1976). Two White employees and one Black employee were charged with stealing property from their employer. The two White employees were fired while the Black employee was retained. In the first big reverse discrimination case, the Court decided that Title VII is not limited to discrimination against minority persons, but includes discriminatory actions against majority persons as well.
- Middletown v. City of Flint, 92 F.3d 396. (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 1552 (1997). Challenge by White police officers passed over for promotions because of voluntary affirmative action plan involving a 50% set aside of promotions to Sergeant for racial minorities. Court found plan to be an “unnecessarily drastic remedy.”
- Police Association of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 100 F.3d 1159 (5th Cir. 1996). City’s race conscious promotions violated Equal Protection Clause because they were not narrowly tailored.
- Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996). Strikes down the race-conscious admissions program of the University of Texas Law School. The school used lower minimum criteria for African American and Mexican American candidates than for other candidates. The Court held that obtaining a racially diverse student body is not a compelling interest under the 14th Amendment.
- Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1993). D.C. Circuit interpreted McDonnell Douglas (described in our “Civil Rights Cases” category in list at left) to require an additional showing for White plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases over and above what would be required by minority plaintiffs. The court held that, because racial discrimination against White persons is so rare, in order to establish the necessary inference of discrimination, White plaintiffs must prove “background circumstances” that “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This can be done by showing that plaintiff was better qualified than the minority applicant whom the employer selected.
- Lucas v. Dole, 835 F.2d 532 (4th cir. 1987). The Fourth Circuit refused to adopt the D.C. Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement and instead applied McDonnell Douglas test in the same way to White and Black plaintiff. White plaintiff satisfied her burden in this case where she showed that she was more qualified than the selected minority applicant, that the interviewing process was too subjective, that the minority applicant had received irregular acts of favoritism, and that other employees believed that race was a factor.