Posted on 08/30/2018 11:25:56 AM PDT by Jess Kitting
The Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday that the school has failed to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on the basis of race and cited what it described as "substantial evidence that Harvard is engaging in outright racial balancing."
The department's "statement of interest" was in a case filed in 2014 by Students For Fair Admission, which argues that one of the world's most prestigious universities discriminates against academically strong Asian-American applicants. Harvard fired back, saying that it does not discriminate and will fight to defend its right to use race as a factor in admissions.
The Supreme Court permits colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions, but says it must be done in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity and should be limited in time. Universities also bear the burden of showing why their consideration of race is appropriate.
But in Harvard's case, Justice Department officials said, the university hasn't explained how it uses race in admissions and has not adopted meaningful criteria to limit the use of race.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, "No American should be denied admission to school because of their race."
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Ping.
Oh how will the left play this one? LOL!
Mr President , I am still not tired of all this WINNING !
We really need to Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court soon.
Very interesting, we should not look at a person's skin rather the content of his character.
As Chinese American I certainly welcome this news
About f’n time.
A favorite Reagan story of mine from when he was governor. Reportedly, Reagan wanted merit-based admission to the CA schools. Someone said to him, “But Governor, if we do that, Berkeley will be 27% Asian.”
To which Ronaldus replied, “So?”
He wants the best and the brightest in these schools. Let’s just hope these Asians don’t turn into SJWs. I have my doubts.
It i welcome news. What’s your sense of Chinese-American support for Trump these days?
Fantastic news.
I think there’s a good chance that this is finally the case that might end affirmative action. The fact that the aggrieved group is non-white is a big plus, but also there documented discrimination and non-existent attempts by Harvard to find another way to accomplish the same objective make it really good test case. Having Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy also makes the vote tally a bit easier, but we’ll have to keep our eyes on that squirmy Roberts.
“Harvard fired back, saying that it does not discriminate and will fight to defend its right to use race as a factor in admissions.”
Don’t they understand how stupid this sounds.
They are basically saying, We do not discriminate, but we will fight to defend our right to discriminate.
Jews got screwed over, then honkies (sort of), now Asians.
And now they finally got a little justice:
MIRACLE..!
Hey when was the last time you saw an Asian guy HERO on TV/movies (not from Lost or The Walking Dead)...?
Unless they accept 100% of applicants, they are practicing discrimination.
Rather than use academic criteria, they chose to use racial criteria.
That’s racism.
Noting that I gladly voted for Pres. Trump and do not regret doing so, please consider the follow.
Since the federal government's constitutionally limited powers also trumps Pres. Trump in my book, here is my critique of Trump Administration concerning this issue.
"The Supreme Court permits colleges and universities to consider race in admissions decisions, but says it must be done in a narrowly tailored way to promote diversity and should be limited in time."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With all due respect to Trump Administration, even if public schools were practicing race discrimination, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to make policy in the name of INTRAstate schooling, including resolving non-voting related race discrimination.
First, consider that President Thomas Jefferson had officially clarified that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution before the feds could officially get involved in INTRAstate schooling, something that the states have never done.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Next, note that the only expressly constitutionally delegated power that the feds can use to justify getting involved in race discrimination issues is the 15th Amendment, that amendment expressly limiting Congress’s involvement in intrastate race discrimination to problems with voting rights.
15th Amendment:
"Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
The balancing act that Harvard is probably trying to protect is to keep its constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment power to practice race discrimination in its admissions process, while also continuing to win unconstitutional federal funding grants, including vote-winning federal grants for tuition, federal funding that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers evidenced by the Jefferson excerpt above.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, the already unconstitutionally big federal government threatens the loss of unconstitutional federal funding, funding based on unconstitutional federal taxes indicated by the Gibbons v. Ogden excerpt above, to unconstitutionally expand its powers with stolen state powers, indicated by the United States v. Butler excerpt above.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.