SCOTUS Opinion: Racial Discrimination Against White People is Constitutional
The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin based, not on the United States Constitution, but a political ideology that ignores natural rights and equal protection under the law. The case is about how the University of Texas at Austin’s (UT) admissions process denies entry to white people because diversity is the most beneficial part of higher education. SCOTUS agreed with UT and rendered the opinion that racial discrimination against white people is constitutional.
Petitioner Abigail Fisher brought a lawsuit against UT after she learned that her admissions application did not meet the university’s standards for entry. Fisher alleged that the university’s consideration of race as part of its holistic- review process disadvantaged her and other Caucasian applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The university’s holistic-review process is a component of a two-part admissions process used to determine acceptance to the institution. The first part of the process is required by the Top Ten Percent Law in Texas (H.B. 588). The Texas legislature passed the Top Ten Percent Law in response to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling in Hopwood v. Texas that declared UT’s practice of giving preference to racial minorities for admission violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas legislature passed H.B. 588 in an attempt to enact a uniform policy for admission into public universities in Texas. The legislation is a sound solution to end racial preferences, and restore equal opportunity to all Texans no matter one’s race. However, it was unacceptable to the progressives who operate UT.
The progressive masterminds at UT devised the second part of its admissions process to subvert the Top Ten Law and restore racial preferences to its admissions process. The second part of UT’s admissions process is the Personal Achievement Index (PAI). The following is the PAI variables that will allow UT to reach “critical mass” for the number of black and Mexican students:
- applicant’s essays
- leadership and work experience
- extracurricular activities
- community service, and
- other “special characteristics.”
The “special characteristics” include the “socioeconomic status of the applicant’s family, the socioeconomic status of the applicant’s school, the applicant’s family responsibilities, whether the applicant lives in a single-parent home, the applicant’s SAT score in relation to the average SAT score at the applicant’s school, the language spoken at the applicant’s school, the language spoken at the applicant’s home, and the applicant’s race.”
The applicant’s race is the most important factor in the admissions process, as the attorneys who argued on behalf of UT admitted. The following is in Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion:
Although UT claims that race is but a “factor of a factor of a factor of a factor,” UT acknowledges that “race is the only one of its holistic factors that appears on the cover of every application.” Because an applicant’s race is identified at the front of the admissions file, reviewers are aware of it throughout the evaluation. Consideration of race, therefore, pervades every aspect of UT’s admission process (p.9).
Admissions officers admitted during depositions that they are well aware of the applicant’s race, and the race of a particular applicant is the guiding principle for evaluating his or her entire application. “We are certainly aware of the applicant’s race. It’s on the front page of the application that’s being read [and] is used in context with everything else that’s part of the applicant’s file” See App. 219a. When a white applicant doesn’t gain entry to UT under the Top Ten Percent Law, as Fisher failed to do, the odds of a white applicant being accepted under UT’s holistic review are astronomical.
The powers that be at UT claim they have to discriminate against white people because diversity demands it. The university claims that a race-neutral system will not allow it to deliver the “educational benefits of diversity to its undergraduate students.” What are the educational benefits of diversity? The university has never defined them. However, UT did articulate before the court that its discrimination against white applicants is motivated by factors larger than equal protection under the law and the U.S. Constitution. Racial preferences are vital to realizing meaningful diversity, which will achieve the following according to UT:
- end stereotypes
- promote cross-racial understanding
- prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. He agreed that discrimination against white people in the name of diversity is constitutional because UT is trying to deliver the magical educational benefits of diversity to its students. Kennedy went so far as to assert “the decision to pursue the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity is, in substantial measure, an academic judgment to which some judicial deference is proper (p.3)”
The university’s argument does not hold up to serious scrutiny. The fact that the benefits of diversity are undefinable and unmeasurable are of no concern to the progressive judicial activists who sit on the Court. The argument that UT makes is that it has to ignore natural rights and the Fourteenth Amendment because its mission is too important to be derailed; Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor agree with UT.
The majority opinion of the Court is that the U.S. Constitution has to take a backseat to progressive ideology. The judicial activists who sit on the Supreme Court are rigid ideologues who think any effort to create utopia trumps the law.