Posted on 04/07/2025 8:10:51 AM PDT by george76
For years, America’s left-wing elite universities have been hiding behind prestige and Ivy League branding while running full-blown discrimination campaigns against (mainly) white students, all in the name of politics. If you’re white (or Asian), you’re told to sit down, shut up, and take the back seat—because the progressive admissions and hiring playbook is all about race quotas, DEI scorecards, and left-wing identity politics. It’s not just unfair—it’s un-American.
...
We’ve highlighted this from all angles at Revolver, exposing how universities use taxpayer dollars and their tax-exempt status to push a radical, anti-white, charity-driven agenda under the fake guise of diversity.
Back in 2023, the Supreme Court delivered the first major blow to the DEI movement by striking down affirmative action in our nation’s universities.
NACE:
On June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the affirmative action policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The court found that such policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is applicable to programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance, including most colleges and universities. The practical effect of the court’s decision is to eliminate the ability of colleges and universities to use race-based policies or affirmative action programs in the admissions process.
So, the good news is that after a disastrous and dangerous DEI agenda that took root in our nation’s universities, we’re finally turning a corner—and the rot is starting to get ripped out at the source. But we’re not out of the weeds yet. Far from it, actually…
Revolver:
Abolishing diversity statements is not the same thing as abolishing the diversity cult itself. The situation in academia is improving in some respects, but for now it remains a matter of tiny marginal improvements to a vast, utterly rotten edifice. The state of affairs in academia today is such that broad swathes of entire disciplines—not just fake DEI disciplines—have become utterly corroded by DEI.
The triumphalism over vanishing diversity statements operates on the assumption that said statements are a primary driver of anti-white and anti-male discrimination in academia. In reality, though, these statements are simply the product of a DEI-obsessed culture that exists on a deeper level. Mandatory statements during the hiring process make it easier and smoother to reject white male applicants, but the intent to reject them as often as possible was there long before. This discriminatory intent means that DEI (or woke, or race communist, pick your term of choice) priorities now pervade almost every aspect of the academic sausage-making process—to a degree that would shock most Americans. Unless this process is reformed (or, more likely, torn out at the root and replaced), universities will continue their downward spiral toward useless mediocrity.
Our piece goes on to highlight what we call the “George Floyd effect.”
There is a consistent pattern in the examples above indicating an aggressive increase in DEI hires beginning in 2020. Perhaps this indicates something of a “George Floyd Effect” in academia.
Universities have also adapted the technique of “cluster hiring,” where multiple faculty are hired at the same time with a focus on particular specialties, to laser in on left-wing political goals. As explained by John Sailer at the National Association of Scholars, even without diversity statements, cluster hiring makes it easier to rig the system by centralizing the hiring process. Such centralization takes faculty hiring out of the hands of normal academic departments and puts it substantially in the hands of administrators, who are more likely to be obsessed with mindlessly hitting quotas.
What’s important about all these factors is that none of them will actually be mitigated by simply abolishing diversity statements. Rather, we see the truth: Diversity statements are simply a mechanism through which university administrators achieve a political goal: hiring fewer white men and more of everybody else. Academics openly admit to this goal, and they engineer it in many other ways.
But there’s another force coming into play. For years, the university DEI racket has been about finding ways to rig the application process to hire those who are less qualified. But especially since Floyd season began in 2020, there have also been changes to the entire academic ecosystem that are undermining the entire concept of being “better qualified.”
Consider academic publishing. One of the reasons it is typically easy to observe that DEI hires are less qualified than their melanin-deficient competitors is that they often fall substantially (or laughably) short on standard career thresholds for an aspiring scholar. For the regular public, the job of professors is to teach college classes, but in academia, the currency of success is published papers and other recognized research accomplishments. Getting a paper in a field’s top journal (such as Nature or Science for scientific endeavors) greatly improves an academic’s chances of being hired, and the conspicuous lack of such papers from many DEI hires drove home the farce of handing them prestigious jobs.
...
But now, thanks to an old legal precedent making the rounds again, conservatives might finally have a new and even more powerful weapon to fight back with. One that hits where it hurts most: the money.
The truth is, these bloated, far-left universities run on taxpayer cash and cushy tax breaks. Yank that funding, and suddenly, they’re all ears.
And this ruling might be just the tool to do it…
Marc J. Randazza:
IRS Revenue Ruling 71-447 said that private schools with racially discriminatory policies did not qualify for tax-exempt status. Bob Jones University challenged this. It had policies prohibiting interracial dating and marriage among students, which the IRS deemed racially discriminatory.
The IRS revoked the university’s tax-exempt status in 1976. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s decision in an 8-1 ruling, finding that the government’s interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education outweighed the school’s religious objections.
So… easy way to yank tax exempt status from most universities. Most still practice racial discrimination in hiring, admissions, and disparate treatment of students.
...
IRS Revenue Ruling 71-447 said that private schools with racially discriminatory policies did not qualify for tax-exempt status.
Bob Jones University challenged this. It had policies prohibiting interracial dating and marriage among students, which the IRS deemed racially discriminatory. The IRS revoked the university's tax-exempt status in 1976. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS's decision in an 8-1 ruling, finding that the government’s interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education outweighed the school’s religious objections.
So... easy way to yank tax exempt status from most universities. Most still practice racial discrimination in hiring, admissions, and disparate treatment of students.
The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution. IOW the IRS rule is only acceptable if the target isn’t leftist.
Imagine if today IRS rules that Harvard’s DEI policies render it taxable. By 4 PM an Obama-appointed judge will file an injunction against the college losing its exempt status. The appeals panel will concur 2-1. SCOTUS will declare the regulation unconsitutional 5-4, with Roberts and Barrett joining the Three Amigas.
We cannot lawfare the enemy. We can only decimate it by any nonviolent means necessary, unless it becomes violent.
Did the article ever get to the point? Random thoughts. I guess schools don’t teach writing anymore and how to organize a paper. You know, state the point then write supporting evidence.
You don’t talk to programmers much. LOL
This. If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull$h1t.
*** If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull$h1t.***
Sounds just like Kamalala ding dong.
The Congress can remove an Article III judge for misconduct. The statute provides for it.
If the Congress does not remove such judge(s) for misconduct, is the Congress complicit?
I wonder how many Article III or SCOTUS judges are Ivy league alums?
I usually skip articles where the author can’t be bothered to state up front what the article is about.
Should have started with this:
“IRS Revenue Ruling 71-447 said that private schools with racially discriminatory policies did not qualify for tax-exempt status.
Bob Jones University challenged this. It had policies prohibiting interracial dating and marriage among students, which the IRS deemed racially discriminatory. The IRS revoked the university’s tax-exempt status in 1976. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s decision in an 8-1 ruling, finding that the government’s interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education outweighed the school’s religious objections.
So... easy way to yank tax exempt status from most universities. Most still practice racial discrimination in hiring, admissions, and disparate treatment of students.”
YAY! to think that bastions of racist discrimination are actually tax-exempt!? Like Harvard, Columbia, Stanford? You gotta be KIDDING!? We’re, in effect, paying (through these immense “tax subsidies”) for this kind of anti-American krap!?
NO WAY! Yank the tax exemption for any college that is discriminating in admissions, hiring, promotions, or financial aid.
Plan B is a full IRS audit—every year—for all universities.
The process would be the punishment—and the universities are our sworn enemies.
I worked on a special challenge related to a proposal. A "big data" data science challenge. I was tagged up with a real Python aficionado. He was well acquainted with all the latest features released from the working groups. The Python code that he produced was leveraging all the latest functional programming constructs. It was so elegant that only he could understand it. FP constructs often make code clearer by composition instead of strict imperative constructs. There was no such clarity in this code. Lots of obscure "magic". I like Python. I use it often, but not like that.
My favorite CS instructor was big about putting comments into code. Literally about 70% of the text in my code were/are comments. (I’m quasi-retired.) As I think about a new procedure/class/function/etc. I type out what I’m thinking at the top as part of my design process. Including the goals I’m trying to achieve and the logical steps I’m doing to achieve those goals. That’s all in a large comment block at the top.
BTTT
I was taught the same thing. I am way past the code writing days. but when I dabble with websites I always include What, Why and How comments.
The same with my program to import my solar telemetry data from my inverters into a DB and query the stew out of it to see if I can find my problem situations. (i.e. should I invest more into insulation so save on winter night time cold weather or is my power consumption more centered around how much I drive our EV even in rainy weather)
Make Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. great again! No more DEI, no more “Africana Studies”, hire the best and brightest faculty, admit the best and brightest students, no more Palestinian-supporting Third Worlders!
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.