Kenn's Laws | | REAL Black History | History & Archaeology | History of Racial Violence | About

Top 25 Conservative Websites | Top 75 Facebook Pages | Kenn Sings | Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong |

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

Real horror story:
Airline adopts gender-denial policy

Support my hard work via Patreon ► Some content, including images, may be subject to copyright

October 22, 2018 -- To discriminate for one is to discriminate against another. 

That is the logic used by Trump-backed judges to fight racial quotas in school enrollment policies. 

From Breitbart ▼ Ken Klukowski

Students for Fair Admissions is a group suing Harvard for discriminating against Asian student applicants on the basis of race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a lawsuit in which the Trump-Sessions Department of Justice is takingthe side of the Asian applicants.

[James Chiun-Yue] Ho—an immigrant from Taiwan nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2017—took the opportunity to address what happens when schools go beyond ending racial discrimination to actually prefer some racial groups over others, with the latter being a form of reverse discrimination.

The Trump-appointed judge beganin a concurring opinion:

Delta opposes these racial balancing requirements as unconstitutional. In so doing, Delta raises an important question: If a charter school wishes to open and operate in geographic proximity to a public school district that is still subject to a decades-old desegregation order—and the charter school has itself never been found guilty of segregation—can a federal court nevertheless impose racial balancing requirements on the charter school?

“Indeed, the Supreme Court has provided two recent signals suggesting that we should generally be loath to impose racial balancing obligations on institutions that, like Delta, have never been found guilty of engaging in racial discrimination,” the judge continued, quoting Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions for the Court from both of those cases.

“Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the Supreme Court’s first such case, Parents Involved from 2007, “contrary to our repeated recognition that at the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.”

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts famously declared.

“Longstanding measures to eradicate the effects of historical discrimination must be justified by contemporary realities,” Roberts added in the second case referenced by Ho, Shelby County v. Holder, from 2013.

“A court order that treats Delta as a modern-day manifestation of Concordia Parish and its shameful legacy of racial segregation, without sufficient evidentiary basis, risks running afoul of this standard,” contended Ho in applying those cases.



Owner: Columbus Marketing Group, Inc. Permission is granted to use original material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.


Post a Comment

powered by Surfing Waves