The question of whether universities practice systemic racism is not just a hypothesis. A jury of public opinion knows full well that it is being done under the protection of the Affirmative Action Act.

The issue is at the heart of one of the most controversial US Supreme Court decisions due to be announced this month. Judges are now deliberating whether race can be taken into account in the college admissions process as they finalize the case for the summer.

Any decision is bound to cause repercussions. Just like when you turn upside down Law vs. Wade A Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 that appears to undermine the affirmative action policy often defended by leftists could spark an outcry.

That could lead to another summer of social unrest, with advocates for race-based admissions taking a long knife to the Supreme Court for being inherently racist. (Related: Josh Hammer: A Huge Leftist Conspiracy Against the Supreme Court)

Proponents of the Marxist theory of continuous revolution know that rulings like this one can serve as the perfect cry for their cause, and the courts themselves are in need of a revolutionary overhaul. express their opinion. They will argue that the court should be filled with another judge. They could use this decision to hunt down Judge Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest civil rights activists on the court and the oldest judge who wants to retire under pressure. be.

At the heart of this issue are the publicly funded affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard University, which have racially biased admissions that discriminate against individuals of Asian descent. accused of enforcing standards.

Both agencies are taxpayer-funded and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

The lawsuits, first surfaced last October by the start-up group Students for Fair Admissions, sued both institutions of higher education, challenging the current university admissions system.

Plaintiffs allege that UNC discriminated against both Asian and white applicants. Harvard University admissions officers, meanwhile, argued that they rated applicants of Asian descent poorly on personal qualities such as “positive personality,” likability, kindness, and being widely respected among their peers. there is

This allegation of discrimination was based on a review of 160,000 student records that found that Asian American students outperformed other racial and ethnic groups in areas such as test scores and performance, as well as extracurricular activities. It became clear from the fact that it was found to be stored. But fair admissions student groups argue that subjective “personality” profiles have reduced their chances of getting into elite schools.

Despite being the fastest growing major racial and ethnic group in the United States, Asian Americans remain fundamentally restricted in enrollment at Harvard University. According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the Asian-American population has nearly tripled over the past 30 years, and this is despite the Asian-American share of the U.S. population increasing by more than 200%. does not change.

Harvard’s admissions results revealed that, without these subjective “personality” factors, 43% of students would be Asian-American. Compared to population growth as a whole, and viewed through the lens of Caltech’s non-racially based admissions practices, this may have deterred Harvard’s Asian American admissions by at least 20%. suggests that there is

The district court initially ruled in favor of Harvard University, and later the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the decision. This case was subsequently combined with his UNC case for Supreme Court review.

Affirmative action is like a bad penny, it keeps popping up. In a 2016 ruling, the High Court voted 4-3 to support the University of Texas at Austin’s Affirmative Action program. Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, the lead author of the ruling, has retired, but Judge Clarence Thomas, who opposed the case, has remained in office.

In 2023, we find ourselves facing a court that is perhaps closer to the US Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court has a publicity challenge. The country’s decision to remand the issue of abortion back to the states, which was little more than a return to the Constitution’s Article 10 principle, has been exposed to left-wing and mainstream media disinformation that characterizes it as “prohibition of abortion.” .^thFix: “Any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the respective States or to the people. “

The media and Democrats, once again, have cleverly used the abortion decision to score political points in the 2022 election campaign from the School Board to the Capitol. According to the interpretation, women in particular were dissatisfied with the court’s decision. For them, by the Marxist moguls who targeted them and ignited under the pro-abortion feminist movement. (Related: David Blackmon: Supreme Court unanimously votes to curb Biden’s EPA)

But American universities are also facing declining public support. They are seen as increasingly expensive producers of ideologically inclined graduates, and the public has become increasingly skeptical about the value of college degrees. There is a legitimate understanding that these institutions serve the needs of the elite that run governments and non-profits, ignoring the concerns of the taxpayers who fund them.

After Pride Month is over, and it will happen in less than three weeks, the new Marxist continuing revolution of 2023-2024 will require a new cause: “America is racist, The Supreme Court is the most racist’ might go back to the well. “

Suzanne Downing is the publisher of “Must Read Alaska”.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.