Libs don’t follow the law. Why do we have to?
The Supreme Court made them racists...
Cut any funds they get from the fed.
ELIMINATE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS AND SEE HOW THE JUMP!!!
Premier law schools indeed.
Being Asian, to the disgust of SJWs, typically correlates to intelligence / hard work / earned success and those things don’t fit into the Whites Are Holding Every Other Group Down narrative.
For that reason, Asians are put behind the bus with Whites and told to push the bus up the hill with other groups inside the bus enjoying the fruits of Asian and White labor.
All of that is systemic.
Devaluing their own product.
Stupid.
The Asians and others that are academically gifted will matriculate elsewhere.
Harvard and Yale will become basketball and football powerhouses,
with great marching bands.
I’m defying Federal guidelines too - by refusing to hire Harvard and Yale graduates.
UC Berkeley, which is almost as competitive as Harvard, is required by state law to be color blind in admissions. The result is that over 25% of students are Asian, with a very small percentage black or hispanic. Truly a disaster for the diversity pimps.
withhold federal funding and research funds.
Goodby student loans to Harvard and Yale. Education will be better if such happens.
And that is their decision. But it is no longer the government’s.
“The continued use of race in university admissions practices put their federal funding at risk.”
Harvard (and presumably Yale too) has a trust so huge they could never charge tuition and wouldn’t need to touch the principal. Cut them off.
Cut off their aid. In fact, if you have at least $50 million and at leat 500 students, you should have your aid stopped.
Then let them do it without federal money.
While I agree with Vos on the error of ALL race-based decisions, whether in education or otherwise, there are two other aspects Conservatives should pay attention to.
My own Constitutional view is that the modern idea (since the 60s) of what is and is not permissible under the Constitution is an error in which the understanding went from the concept that GOVERNMENT could not discriminate to government making the individual a de facto government agent, vis a vis dicrimination, and against their will.
Of course GOVERNMNENT - as law, as policy, as police, prosecutor, judge, eligibility to be elected, eligibility to serve cannot discriminate because it is the government and it is everyone’s government.
The “public accomodation” concept morphed the law from preventing GOVERNMENT from discriminating to government forcing you in your personal affairs to carry out a government “non-descrimination” policy for the government.
Yet such a concept was never the intent of the founders understanding of Liberty. For instance, freedom of speech. That applies to a mandate against government restricting freedom of speech. As a private person or private entity it does not apply to you and how you are willing or not willing to allow what is yours to be used by others. Yes, you can control the speech of others using your property. The Constitutional mandate against government stands, but you have Liberty the government does not have, you can control the application of speech when it comes to your own property.
That is clear, and it was once clear regarding discrimination, until the “civil rights” era made you no longer a free person with Liberty but an agent of the government, by force of government telling you you must by law be its agent.
Along with that morphing of Constitutional meaning came its application under the growing behemoth known as the federal government and its expansion into every aspect of life, with federal purse strings attached. That brought the federal power of the purse into further insuring private persons and privaste entitites could be forced to be agents of federal social policies. Vos is right in one sense, but I would prefer she, the government, did not have that power.
While I can applaud Vos for going after the Liberal/Left hypocrisy and their selective discrimination, sold as “diversity”, as a Constitutionalist I would argue that as private entitties they should in the first place not be compelled by law to be part of any federal social policy.
And as a Constitutionalist politician, while I agree with Vos on one level, I would prefer to eliminate her job and her whole department and end federal meddling in education altogether. It can surely not be said that education has gotten better in the U.S. since the federal department of education was created.
You see folks we still have what we have been fighting against. We want to tear down the progressive ediface of the regulatory state, and the GOP establishment still operates in the notion that all that is needed is to run it “better” under GOP management.
That idea is not, and has not been working when it comes to ANY part of the federal bureaucracy.