Justices Reconfirm: Discrimination Against Whites is OK

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 25, 2013

A defeat in the form of a compromise.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has generated headlines about “compromise” and “partial victory for the foes of affirmative action,” but it is not that at all. It is an out-and-out affirmation of the right to discriminate against white students (and sometimes Asians) in the name of “diversity.” David Hinojosa of MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) got it right when he said, “It’s a great decision by the court reaffirming diversity as a compelling interest.”

If even this allegedly “conservative” Supreme Court is not willing to ban racial discrimination against whites, it is hard to imagine any future Supreme Court that will. The most recently appointed justice, Elena Kagen, did not take part in the decision because she argued for discrimination against whites when she was solicitor general, and it is impossible to imagine any justice appointed by a Democrat—and what other kind are we likely to get?—voting to strike down “affirmative action.” This could be the high-water mark for the Supreme Court’s partial and inadequate rollback of the race-preferences policies under which whites have suffered for the last 40 years.

The court piously denounced racial “quotas,” and reaffirmed that discrimination must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve its goals, and may be resorted to only when non-racial tricks to achieve racial diversity don’t work. This is all the loophole a racial zealot needs. That is why UT President William Powers said he was “encouraged” by the ruling, and notes that it won’t effect admissions policies at all.

So what actually happened?

UT has used every trick it could think of to get more blacks and Hispanics into its flagship campus at Austin. At first, it didn’t even need tricks. It openly gave non-whites extra consideration, which meant they got in with much worse grades and test scores than whites. However, in the 1996 case of Hopwood v. Texas the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this was a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, and said UT must not pay any attention to race.

UT immediately started paying attention to other things. It invented something called a “Personal Achievement Index” (PAI) that gave applicants extra credit for being poor, growing up without a father, and speaking a language other than English at home—but no points for race. It was a transparent effort to get race in through the back door, but it didn’t work very well. An annoying number of white students got high PAI scores.

So, in 1997, the Texas legislature obligingly passed a law saying that any Texas student who graduated in the top 10 percent of his high school class would be admitted to UT. This was another allegedly non-racial way to be gin up diversity that was based on the fact that so many Texas high schools are largely segregated.

All this maneuvering worked. Before Hopwood, when UT was free to discriminate however it liked, the entering class was, on average, 4.1 percent black and 14.5 percent Hispanic. After it invented the PAI system and got the 10-percent law passed, those figures increased to 4.5 percent and 16.9 percent.

But the new system had drawbacks. Some of those top-10-percenters were doubtful characters from miserable ghetto high schools, and although they were certifiably diverse, not even the anti-white fanatics thought they belonged at UT. So in 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled in the two Grutter cases that race could be part of the admissions process after all (see my analysis of those tortured cases here), UT shouted for joy and went back to racial discrimination.

UT set aside 25 percent of its incoming class for people who were not in the top 10 percent, not poor or illegitimate, etc., but whom it could let it for various slippery reasons, mainly race. And now that it could go back to explicit racial preferences, it cut back automatic admits to the top eight percent of students. UT admits that it wanted middle-class, non-deprived blacks and Hispanics who may not have been at the tops of their classes, but who attended good schools and were better than the nasty types coming from the worst schools. UT was worried these lowlifes might encourage “stereotyping.” It was this part of the admissions process—that openly considers race—that Abigail Fisher challenged.

So, what did the court decide? The worst part of its ruling was to confirm, seven-to-one (as noted above Elena Kagan sat out this decision, but we know very well what she thinks), that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” That is the heart, soul, lungs, and gizzard of the ruling.

A university, said the court, is in the business of educating people, and if a university decides in its Olympian wisdom that “diversity” is an important part of an education, the university must be shown “deference.” If UT thinks having non-whites on campus is vital to a college education, then, yes, it may can kick Abigail Fisher and other white applicants in the teeth. However, it can’t do it according to rules ordinary people would understand.

Not good enough for UT.

Not good enough for UT.

UT can’t just simply add 200 points to SAT scores as a reward for being black. It can’t just hold open 20 percent of the slots for Mexicans. That would be something people understand, and white applicants would know what they were up against. Instead, discrimination has to be “narrowly tailored,” and therefore “cannot use a quota system.” It must “remain flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.” Simple rules are unconstitutional. A university must meditate and consult chicken entrails and take it to the Lord in prayer before it slams the door on better qualified whites and Asians.

So what’s all this about sending the case back to the lower courts? The problem with the Appeals Court ruling that upheld the admissions policy, say the justices, is that it did not paw through the chicken entrails. Discrimination is fine and we don’t dispute that, they say, but the Appeals Court should have plumbed the mysteries of the process to see whether it was “narrowly tailored.” The only thing the Appeals Court considered was whether UT reintroduced race-based admissions “in good faith.” That, say the justices, is not a strict enough hurdle:

On this point, the University receives no deference. Grutter made clear that it is for the courts, not for university administrators, to ensure that ‘[t]he means chosen to accomplish the [government’s] asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.’

Grutter, the justices added, also “imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” Since the District Court and the Appeals Court both skated over those questions, the case goes back to the Appeals Court for another round. In the meantime, UT’s admissions policy is unchanged.

I repeat: This not a compromise, or if it is a compromise it gives very little to the foes of affirmative action. Courts may be able to look a little more closely at how universities go about achieving diversity. For the most part, however, this is a reaffirmation of Sandra Day O’Connor’s boneheaded decision of 10 years ago that upholds the principle of racial discrimination against whites and surrounds it with a fog of mumbo-jumbo about “narrow tailoring.” Also, this ruling applies directly to only one admissions policy: that of the University of Texas at Austin. Even if the lower courts find that there was too much mumbo and not enough jumbo, it will make no difference to other admissions policies. Each one will have to be litigated separately. There are plenty of liberal judges who will bless even blatant discrimination, so long as it is against whites.

And I repeat again: For the foreseeable future, we are not likely to get a court that is more hostile to “affirmative action” than this one. If the Roberts Court won’t overturn the principle of racial preferences, the increasingly non-white court we can expect in the future certainly will not.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg pointed the way. She noted that the 10-percent deal in Texas was a transparent dodge to get non-whites on campus. If that’s OK, she wanted to know, what’s wrong with plain old racial preferences. We need them, she said, because of “the lingering effects of an overtly discriminatory past” and “the legacy of centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.” Quoting herself in a previous dissent, she wrote: “Among constitutionally permissible options, I remain convinced, ‘those that candidly disclose their consideration of race [are] preferable to those that conceal it.’ ” She is all for race preferences for non-whites; lay ’em on thick. She said the UT admissions policy was plenty “narrowly tailored,” and said if it were up to her she would let the university get on with it.

Where were the court’s conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? Justice Scalia put his head in hole, saying that Miss Fisher did not ask that the principle of discrimination be considered, so he was happy to send the case back to have the entrails examined. Theoretically that is true. During oral argument Miss Fisher’s lawyers danced away from asking for a reexamination of principle, and said they would be satisfied with a ruling on whether UT’s admissions policy was sufficiently incomprehensible.

Justice Scalia despises racial preferences, yet he has just put his name on a decision that confirms them in principle. Maybe he sees a better chance ahead to knock them dead, but if he does, he must have X-ray vision.

Clarence Thomas, the only black on the court, was the only justice to take a principled stand against preferences across the board. In a dissent that the media are sure to ignore, he analyzed what is really meant by the term “compelling state interest,” which the University of Texas has invoked to justify discrimination. He wrote that official government racial discrimination is so loathsome that whatever it achieves had better be awfully important: “[O]nly those measures the State must take to provide a bulwark against anarchy, or to prevent violence, will constitute a ‘pressing public necessity’,” adding that “the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest.”

Justice Thomas went on to make interesting comparisons between the arguments segregationists used to make and the arguments the preferences crowd are now making. Segregationists used to say that blacks need separate schools because blacks are happier among their own kind, and black schools give them a chance to be leaders on campus. The preferences maniacs say “diversity” will break down “negative stereotypes” and help people become leaders in our increasingly multi-culti country.

Justice Thomas wrote:

There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits. . . . The Constitution does not pander to faddish theories about whether race mixing is in the public interest. The Equal Protection Clause strips States of all authority to use race as a factor in providing education.

He also pointed out that the racial angle is blindingly obvious in UT’s admissions gimmickry. The students who were let in outside the top-ten-percent had the following average SAT scores: blacks—1524, Hispanics—1794, whites—1914, and Asians—1991. That’s a nearly 400-point difference between blacks and whites. Please recall that the Supreme Court says that when preferences are used, they are not supposed to make “an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.” UT had to ignore that language to get spreads like that. Justice Thomas wrote that if it were up to him, he would ban race preferences forever.

So, what happens now with Fisher v. University of Texas? It was a fellow named Edward Blum, who runs a one-man show called the Project on Fair Representation that brought Abigail Fisher and her lawyers together and made the case happen. Now he has to go back to the Appeals Court and arrange a rematch. He says he will do so, but eventually he will run out of money. The University of Texas can dip into the state treasury and litigate the case into the next century.

The astonishing irony in this case, as in so many others, is that the one black justice is the only one who opposes any kind of government discrimination for whatever reason. All the whites are on record as saying discrimination is fine, so long as it is sufficiently opaque. Of course, it is only in this insane, topsy-turvy world that Justice Thomas sounds like a hero. In a properly race-conscious world, organizations and individuals would discriminate freely, entirely as they saw fit.

Far-seeing whites should think carefully about arguments against discrimination in principle because discrimination, private and even public, is necessary to our survival as a people. In cases such as Fisher, we are drawn to anti-discrimination arguments because the only acceptable, legal targets of public discrimination are ourselves. Such is the astonishing, absurd, and suicidal fix we whites have gotten ourselves into while we are still, for the time being, the majority.

The full text of the Supreme Court’s decision is here

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • When thinking about this case, I put myself in the position of a Supreme Court judge. (Yeah, I know, from my mouth to Allah’s ears.)

    The hypothetical me on SCOTUS would like to find for Miss Fisher, but I can’t think of any Federal Constitutional grounds to do so. Just between everyone reading these words and the gatepost, we all know that this Top 10% was done precisely as a seemingly non-racial end run around the concept of blatantly race-based AA, because we all know that the valedictorian of taco or ghetto high schools in Texas isn’t as worthy as someone from a difficult competitive white high school who finished one person below the top 10%. But what am I supposed to use as a rationale to find for Miss Fisher? Am I to use the doctrine of disparate impact? (Which the real SCOTUS will take up next term). Except I don’t think the disparate impact doctrine should even exist. If it shouldn’t exist to invalidate police and fire department entrance and promotion exams, then it shouldn’t exist to knock back this top 10% system either. The doctrine of strict scrutiny of racial classifications at law? First off, I think intermediate scrutiny should be used on race, and second, there are no racial classifications de jure in this case.

    If there was some paper trail somewhere that proved that the authors of the top 10% policy specifically and explicitly did it because of race, then I suppose I could use strict scrutiny to declare it an illegitimate racial classification, if I was given to do that.

    One more thing from SCOTUS: You’re reading a lot of hemming and hawing in the breaking news that SCOTUS borked the Voting Rights Act and namely the preclearance provisions. They did no such thing. All they did was order that the DOJ come up with a better, more timely more up-to-date formula on determining which jurisdictions have to do preclearance. They did NOT find the Federal government’s power to require preclearance of some jurisdictions but not all unconstitutional, much less find the whole notion of preclearance unconstitutional much less the whole VRA unconstitutional. IOW, in the heart of the matter, they found for the Feds/VRA.

  • BernieGoetzFan

    It is amazing how this is happening at the same time as the amnesty. All these non-whites will get quotas, of course.
    Affirmative action really is forever now. Or at least until the Hispanics/Asians decide to stop giving quotas to blacks.

    • Spartacus

      -My people have suffered historical abuse at the hands of white racists.
      -Wait a minute, didn’t you just jump the fence yesterday?
      -Well…Erm… RACIST !


    Charles Whitman is the answer at UT Austin

    • Anan7

      Just FYI, I’m sure the NSA or CIA is monitoring this website (maybe
      they’re even funding it covertly?). I’m sure saying things like that is
      bound to get the attention of some lackey over there in a negative way.

      Just some friendly advice.

    • IanJMacDonald

      Extremely bad taste. Mods, what were you thinking when you approved this comment?

  • Funruffian

    What is so blindingly pathetic about UT’s demographic is that Asians far outperform and earn their spots in the University in comparison to the overall residential population they hold. As Blacks get all of these assistant programs, AA quota privileges and racial preferences, they still make up less than half of the college campus in relation to the state’s Black population. If I were Asian I would be disgusted by the governmental support blacks receive who have hardly earned their admissions in relation to Asians.

    • Non Humans

      Not to mention that nearly all nonhumans have IQ’s (literally) on par with mental retards (no offense intended to the mentally retarded). It’s no secret (as evidenced by the Georgia cheating scandal) that they receive inflated scores and also dumbed-down curriculums to improve their appearances on the scholastic level.
      When I go back and further my education (online), if I end up failing any classes, I’ll just claim nonhuman racial status and will gain a pass after the fact.

  • Initially when the news came out yesterday, it looked for a moment as if the SCOTUS had moved a few inches away from endorsing race preferences, but Jared’s disillusioning commentary is by far the best I have read so far.

    He is also correct about the University having all the funds and the time in the world to litigate against white individuals whom a few smaller non-profits might assist in trying to defend their rights.

    The one thing that struck me in reading some of the arguments of Miss Fisher’s lawyer last year, was the typical tendency of lawyers to be cautious and not tackle the issue head-on. As far as I recall, he did not attack the notion of “diversity”, but simply argued that UT was already diverse enough not to exclude Abigail Fisher on racial grounds.

    This also happens a lot here in South Africa where we have to fight name changes and language discrimination (against Afrikaans) in the courts. Ultimately, one gets a sense of “winning the battle but losing the war”. Sometimes a case is won on some technicality but the principle is left untouched.

    If it makes sense at all to litigate against the state or huge institutions like universities, almost against all odds, one should attack the core principle, such as “diversity” or race preference itself. Even if the outcome is then negative, at least the hostility of the SCOTUS against whites would have been revealed, the emperor seen to be naked as it were.

    As things stand now, the issue has been fudged and the lower court will probably keep it that way. So UT will just invent another another abstruse requirement to exclude whites without actually calling it racial.

    Some time in the future demographics will change and white students will be a minority on campus. At that stage universities will not argue that they need more “diversity” in the form of white students, but the remaining whites will be punished for “past privileges” enjoyed by their parents and grandparents.

    I strongly feel that universities with their “tenured radicals” are leading the way as far as the downfall of the West is concerned. There must be some way in which they can be boycotted or isolated in order to neutralise them.

    • nicholasstix

      Massive budget cuts–it’s the best way to fight them, short-term. Second: Class-action lawsuits against their diversity training apparatuses (Student Life) for their discirmination and racial terror, with huge monetary damages in play.

  • JohnEngelman

    Whether the Supreme Court makes decisions that are considered to be “liberal” or “conservative” I think it has too much power. Although my candidates often lose elections I have more confidence in 51 percent of the voters than in five Supreme Court justices who are appointed for life, and who may change their political persuasion after they are appointed to the Court as Earl Warren did.

    • populism101

      exactly. Real democracies don’t put power in the hands of ivory tower elite who never worked a real job in their lives and who cannot be recalled or voted out by the people.

      America will not get better until americans realize that the very structure of the federal govt is working against the working class, and that structure was designed to do just that–thwart democracy.

    • MikeofAges

      For once, we are happily on the same side of the issue. I visited Washington in early 2012 while visiting a relative in Virginia. The Capital was closed due to the State of the Union address being that day so we visited the Library of Congress building and the Supreme Court across the street.

      I have two things to say about the Supreme Court. Didn’t see a member, but I have to say, I have never been in a mopier place in my life. If anyone there could move and think at normal human speed, I saw no evidence of it. The other thing was, I have never been around any bunch of people who seemed to have a higher opinion of themselves than the members of the Supreme Court.

      The Supreme Court has a legitimate function but it oversteps quite often. So far as the “features of society” (Ruth Bader Ginzburg’s exceedingly forthright words) are determined by law and public policy, an unelected “nine” have had too much say in determining what they are.

  • Athling

    The fact that the State has no compelling interest to remove racial preferences is an accurate indicator of our current condition.

  • populism101

    GOP presidents appointed 5 of those judges. Supposedly the GOP is the party that is against affirmative action.


    Not once in this article above by Jared Taylor are the words “GOP” or “Republican” mentioned.

    Is this Amren a site owned or operated or in the pay of the GOP?

    Why not mention the fact that the GOP just upheld affirmative action?

    • Evette Coutier

      I think to be fair to Mr. Taylor, democratic and liberals never appoint judges who rule in opposition to affirmative action. Whereas republicans are more divided between judges who support and do not support ethnic quotas and diversity. In the final analysis, we have republicans like Rubio who are unreliable on issues involving such things, and we also see other republicans who stand on principle. You never see democrats stand on constitutional principle. Thus, it makes more sense to generalize about the left on this issue, but less so about republicans and conservatives.

  • IstvanIN

    NJ Republican Governor Christie announces a new scholarship for women and minorities. Who’s missing????

    • populism101

      christie–>another republican

      • IanJMacDonald

        Another RINO.

  • KenelmDigby

    When John Kennedy/ Lyndon Bains Johnson/Martin Luther King set out on their great plan plan to destroy America, way back in the early 60s, many foolish Whites were gung-ho and in with them and their plans. It was the ‘trendy’ and ‘humane’ thing to do.
    Many warning voices – predicting precisely this outcome that we can see – were voiced from older, wiser Whites who knew how these things worked. These wise-heads were inevitably denounced and insulted as racists, bigots, White supremacists etc, and if not physically attacked and murdered they were soundly persecuted and ridiculed and ultimately ignored.
    As it happens, even the stern-faced Cassandras underestimated the scale of blatant anti-White discrimination approved by the US government.

  • JohnEngelman

    When the Supreme Court makes decisions one approves of it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absolute truth.

    The reality is that the justices of the Supreme Court read their personal values into the vague wording of the U.S. Constitution in order to reach decisions that the majority of the voters often disapprove of.

    From the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954 to the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 liberals relied on the Supreme Court to win victories they could not have won democratically.

    The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, which overturns decades of legislation to control campaign financing, should remind liberals that the Supreme Court is a two edged sword that can cut in both directions. It is a loose cannon that can roll in any direction doing a lot of damage.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    It has not always been so. Say, in Eisenhower’s days …

  • Bardon Kaldian

    Why don’t we insist on racial quotas ? 70% for European Whites. If affirmative action can’t be struck down, it can be redefined to help poor Whites.

    • populism101

      why don’t cattle insist on not being slaughtered? Sheep insist on not being sheared?
      The USA is NOT a democracy. It is run for and by the rich, and it was set up that way from the start….

  • Bo_Sears

    David Brims is saying something that is totally true, but totally taboo on both right and left. The sponsor of this blog believes there is something called “whites,” neither diverse nor American — a clear example of a disordered category of discourse.

    There nine categories of diversity listed in our syllabus [ ResistingDefamation.org ] demonstrating the richly textured diversity of white American peoples, and we fail in our purposes by failing to demand respect for that diversity. Even President Obama believes that there is such a thing as “a typical white person” as he said in his first campaign for the presidency, and he should have been pilloried for that bigoted and hateful statement.

    But the hard left believes, or chooses to believe, that we are all clones of each other, and the right (running from O’Reilly to Hannity to all the other commentators and elected white politicians) refrains from attacking back at those who degrade us by insisting we are all just one thing.

  • If ‘affirmative action’ is here to say, the only option is for white gentiles to insist that Jews be counted as a separate category. If white gentiles must give up positions to blacks and Hispanics, then super-over-privileged and over-represented Jews should make room for white gentiles, especially poor ones. Also, as AA mainly affects lower income whites, conservatives must embrace class warfare rhetoric, especially as 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats and support Obama. Close to 40% of all billionaires are Jewish. Conservatives have been stabbed in the back by the globalist rich class.

    If white Hispanics are not counted as whites but receive special favors, then white Jews must also not be counted as whites. Since Jews are by far the most privileged and powerful group in America, white people power must go after Jews.

    Jews led the affirmative action to hurt white gentiles. As AA affects poorer whites–Jews are rich and well-connected–, the program has allowed Jews to get richer and more powerful while pulling the rug out of white middle class and working class power.

    Jews did this. Go after Jews.

  • Oom Paul

    The black woman is the Scottish-highlands dance champion. I find it difficult to imagine her dancing to the sound of bag-pipes…

  • MadMike

    If only the USA brought over Chinese Laborers instead of African Slaves.

  • populism101

    yup, the republicans don’t want to win on affirmative action. However, affirmative action is really more of an economic issue–affirmative action combined with mass immigration and civil rights laws are how the rich manage to cram ever more cheap labor into workplace and cram ever more consumer into the livestock operation known as america.

    And the GOP knows that their shills in the media and online will put the blame on the Democrats for affirmative action instead of pointing to the GOP. See Mr. Taylor’s article above, for instance.

    Mr. Frank made some good points in that book, WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS. But like all liberals, he ignores the fact that a big factor in driving whites to the arms of the GOP is the fact that much of the liberal base has been brainwashed to hate whites. Even white liberals hate whites. That is what they have been told since childhood. And that anti-white animus drives white males, blue collar white males, especially, into the arms of the GOP and their anti-worker policies.

    • JohnEngelman

      I have never known a white liberal who hated whites.

  • MadMax

    Here’s a conversation about the topic on AlJazeeraEnglish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6AIVs0uJ04). The liberal viewpoints presented are stomach turning, so brace yourself! You’ve been warned.

  • WR_the_realist

    My belief is that all tax payer funded entities *should* have a policy of nondiscrimination. Private schools, businesses, and other organizations should be allowed to discriminate any way they like. If they don’t like short employees, fine, I’ll work somewhere else.

  • Lop_Eared_Galoot

    We need them, she said, because of “the lingering effects of an overtly discriminatory past” and “the legacy of centuries of law-sanctioned inequality.”

    Three percent of a long dead white population (along with certain indians and other blacks) owned slaves. That was a heinous act which we are not responsible for today because NONE of the underlying social conditions which were used to justify the stripping of human dignity now apply to blacks who are indeed _measured on their mental merits_ because ‘The John Henry Clause’ renders all such physically degrading labor less usefully achieved by anyone.

    If blacks cannot rise on their own in an altered condition from that which brought them to this country, it is not the whites who deserve counter-discrimination. But rather **the system** as economic shifted reality from industrial to services to info dominant SES drivers of skillsets which is being challenged.

    If Justice Ginsberg likes her society the way it is, with it’s latte`’s and it’s elegant divorce of high moral concepts from base degradation of our work ethic as quality of work product, then she would be well advised to consider what happens when you enable a people who are evolutionarily optimized for a -different- ‘system’ that includes disease, predators and population pressure as well as an extremely hostile (hot and dry) environment as arguments against development of white-like social and behavioral norms which reward high intelligence.

    She is blaming us for the methods (winter, and the isolative need to plan our way through it in a deterministic fashion) that make us better white collar workers because our society reflects our evolutionary survival mode optimizations.

    A society which she benefits from for being White Predominant in it’s expressed cultural mode.

    Quoting herself in a previous dissent, she wrote: “Among constitutionally permissible options, I remain convinced, ‘those that candidly disclose their consideration of race [are] preferable to those that conceal it.’ ” She is all for race preferences for non-whites; lay ’em on thick. She said the UT admissions policy was plenty “narrowly tailored,” and said if it were up to her she would let the university get on with it.

    I agree. Because it would make it obvious that we are endorsing cultural suicide as a means to lower the bar to a society which blacks and Hispanics can participate ‘as equals in’ as though the label college educated middle class mattered more than the reality of what you are expected to achieve with that education.

    Already, cultural islanding and the white withdrawal from the Social Contract is starting to have major effects on our competitiveness in the global marketplace because _competence_ is all that matters in Asia, the Middle East and those parts of Africa where there are resources to be conserved and exploited at optimal efficiency.

    As their own cultures rise and their own expertise as knowledge base with it, these countries will not need us. Will not pay the bills for foreign contractor expertise or the training in American Universities of their own sons and daughters.

    And so the society that can accept highly skilled whites returning, unwanted, from the global market will have to be able to find them work. And won’t. Because our society is no longer moded towards the success of excellence but rather the entitlement of racial set asides.

    Where were the court’s conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? Justice Scalia put his head in hole, saying that Miss Fisher did not ask that the principle of discrimination be considered, so he was happy to send the case back to have the entrails examined. Theoretically that is true. During oral argument Miss Fisher’s lawyers danced away from asking for a reexamination of principle, and said they would be satisfied with a ruling on whether UT’s admissions policy was sufficiently incomprehensible.

    Justice Scalia despises racial preferences, yet he has just put his name on a decision that confirms them in principle. Maybe he sees a better chance ahead to knock them dead, but if he does, he must have X-ray vision.

    The Court which is so cowardly as to refuse to look at the Trends leading to a dangerous future is the court which ignores the reality of a present based on their vendetta attributed vision of the past.

    IMO, this is the number one reason why the Founders ensured the Constitution strictly proscribed all Court interference from day to day societal matters of judicial oversight because there isn’t an engine sufficient to prevent their abuse of their authority in rendering dejur as defacto policy making which is explicitly and exclusively supposed to be the purview of the Congress through legislative Amendment.
    They are indulging in social agendism for their own personal viewpoint not that of the ageless wisdom of the Constitution which officially forbids what UT has done.

    As soon as they stopped interpreting principle to become instead advocates of precedent, they began a long and irretrievable regression to endorsement of hysterical as historic attribution of what we must do to make good out ancestors actions. Which is, itself, racist.
    Clarence Thomas, the only black on the court, was the only justice to take a principled stand against preferences across the board. In a dissent that the media are sure to ignore, he analyzed what is really meant by the term “compelling state interest,” which the University of Texas has invoked to justify discrimination. He wrote that official government racial discrimination is so loathsome that whatever it achieves had better be awfully important: “[O]nly those measures the State must take to provide a bulwark against anarchy, or to prevent violence, will constitute a ‘pressing public necessity’,” adding that “the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest.”
    No. Because if we were willing to go to war to free blacks because ‘we were better than that’ as arbiters of a racial abhorrence of slavery, then we must be willing to build more prisons if black genetics prevent them from competing as equals and ‘anarchy as violence’ is the result of their frustration with their position.
    As is, despite all the set asides as AA, 13% of our total population makes up 36% of our 2.3 million incarcerated felons which, at 40,000 dollars each, comes to some 32 BILLION dollars a year. These numbers have not substantively changed in decades. Show me where preferential treatment as access to college has helped this?
    Between 2 and 3 percent of blacks have the 115-120 IQ to qualify (at the bottom rung) for a college education. Anything which ‘creams the curdle’ beneath on the basis of social engineering percentage games in fact is an act of racial prejudice because, where 16% of white equivalent population have the same 115-120 IQ norm, numbers which exceed these relative population percentages must be taken as being for _other than_ the purpose of granting equal access to all, based on merit and for the common good.
    If the Justices have decided to undermine the United States socio-economic assurances of future wealth as prosperity based solely on furtherance of some personal perception of racial inequality as deriving from past practices rather than immediate need, then they are no longer acting with the detatched objectivity that a _democracy_ (by for and of the majority people) demands.
    Their misguided idealism may be zealous. But it is not commendable because it is not their’s to pay it’s price. We are the victims here. And as we are also the majority taxpayers responsible for their salaries, it is time to convene a Constitutional Convention long overdue which once more puts The Court firmly in it’s place as having no right to act beyond the strictures of the Constitution. No right to exercise policy making influence at all.

  • Epiminondas

    If whites want to get out of this AA straightjacket, they’re going to have to fight their way out of it. The law is simply unjust and we must begin to think about ways to confront the legal and educational establishments. Defeating AA is vital to our survival, and we should be willing to discuss any alternatives.

    • AllSeeingEyeSpy

      Wherever the government says it’s Ok to discriminate against white men, women of all races seem to agree with this too and are also very much discriminating against white men. And it will only be after white men are denied ‘affirmative action’, too, affirmative action preferences for everyone but white men will begin to be seriously challenged.

  • Epiminondas

    She may not be white inside.

  • Rossbach

    I must admit that I agree with Justice Ginsberg. If colleges and universities are going to favor non-whites in their admissions policies, it is better if they just acknowledge what they are doing. That way, Blacks and Hispanics who get admitted will know that they were admitted because of their race, and whites who are not admitted will understand that they were denied admission because they are white. That way, there is no subterfuge. We will all know what is going on and why.

    We will also know what we have to do.


    In all this bickering, did anyone from the pro-diversity side offer any proof that diversity actually yields educational benefits?

  • MystiKasT

    blacks are a problem

  • Michelle

    Discrimination against whites,surprise surpise.. On a side note,the only white girl in the 1st pic is hilarious. She looks like she’s about to cry,or just finished crying .. Im pretty sure she’s there against her will.. The black behind her has a gun to her back, ‘Hol dis hur Unite Against Racism sign o’els u racis’.. The only thing these white students are going to learn by having blacks forced on them is the realisation of what black people are really like. Not to mention im sure the statistics of campus rapes will increase 1050%.. When you continuously force something onto someone they will rebel against it. Maybe at first they’ll politely give it a try but as you keep forcing,people will rebel against that. In this case, they keep forcing blacks on us, forcing them into our schools, forcing them into our neighbourhoods, forcing them onto our favourite tv shows..etc.. Its just a matter of time before even the brainwashed pro black whites get sick of having black people shoved at them in every direction and rebel. So if this is a well orchestrated plan to get us to our black tolerance breaking point,well then they’re doing an excellent Job.

  • seber12463848704

    I’m not quite sure how affirmative action is racist if white women are eligible for it. There’s more white women than white men thus the majority of white people benefit from affirmative action. Call it unfair against white men, but calling it racist is just dumb.

  • Kyle Farmer

    I maintain that this is a very complicated issue. Coming from South Africa, I certainly have my own, strong opinion on what could be done to assist potential minority students. All I actually wanted to point out was that the picture with the 6 graduates is a little offensive, and I very rarely take offense. We have a Black male who donates his summers to humanitarian efforts, an Indian woman who can speak many languages, etc, all of which are to be given respect. What bugs me is that the best thing the writers could come up with for the White male and woman were, “Wearing no pants” and “Pogo stick All star”. These are not achievements. “All Star” might mean something in the states, but lets face it, in the real world wearing pants and being able to bounce, not that hard. Please maintain the balance between these individuals and abstain from this modern practice of mocking white people.

  • End the insidious and destructive discrimination of “Affirmative” Action today. The only discriminating criteria should be merit.

  • Ardeare

    Different races always attract conflict in every corner of the world.

  • aulbertwest

    What racial diversity means is showing favoritism towards blacks & maybe Hispanics & Muslims. What percentage of students at UT Austin are Native Americans? Cherokee Indians? Irish? Scottish? Canadian? Dutch? Chinese? Japanese? Israeli? Palestinian?