OPINION: This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion
In a recent announcement, the Supreme Court declared that it would hear appeals against racial admissions policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard.
A hearing date has been set for Oct. 31 by the nation’s highest court.
A policy manager at FreedomWorks, Alex Deise, said the Supreme Court could rule in a historic way and abolish the “ability for higher education to use race-based affirmative action in admissions.”
It has been alleged that UNC and Harvard discriminated against Asian and white applicants in the admissions process, and some argue their civil rights were violated.
There has also been a major victory for veterans in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
A ruling in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court 5-4 that states cannot invoke sovereign immunity in order to prevent veterans from reclaiming previous employment with state employers.
“Upon entering the Union, the States implicitly agreed that their sovereignty would yield to federal policy to build and keep a national military,” Justice Stephen Breyer stated in his opinion. “States thus gave up their immunity from congressionally authorized suits pursuant to the ‘plan of the Convention,’ as part of ‘the structure of the original Constitution itself.’”
The case involved a Texas state trooper who claimed that he was forced out of his job after returning from Iraq; Torres claims that he could no longer serve as a trooper because of the lung damage he had received from burn pits in Iraq. He requested a different job but was denied.
“We should not have to fear of losing our jobs, we come back. But now there’s a sense of peace and of comfort that we can come back and hey, you know what, if I have limitations that they’ll be accommodated,” Torres said after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Returning from Iraq after five years has had many challenges but I am grateful to God for the strength that he’s giving me along the way and for our community,” Torres said to media.
As a result of this ruling, Torres is grateful for the help it will provide to thousands of veterans.
“This shouldn’t be an issue anymore. With those rights that are protected for individuals,” Rep. Vicente Gonzales wrote on Twitter.
“This is a Monumental step for our veterans. Anyone in the military Community knows that exposure to burn pits can lead to lifelong Health complications. We cannot punish our veterans for trying to re-enter civilian life with injuries sustained while protecting our nation.”
Regarding the UNC and Harvard race-based admissions case, Fox News reported “Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is one of two cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to eliminate race as an admissions factor and, as a result, overturn the precedent case, Grutter v. Bollinger. The case also seeks to answer whether Harvard College violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through its alleged discrimination against Asian-American students, stemming from the initial lawsuit.”
“It’s very clear to me that Harvard University was engaging in blatant discrimination. And what they were doing was they did not like the fact that Asian-Americans – if they were simply admitted based on their credentials, qualifications – would have such a huge percentage of the student body,” The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky was quoted by Fox News as saying.
“Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas. Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” said Edward Blum, the SFFA President in a prepared statement.
A decision reversing Grutter “would be the most dramatic, most far-reaching decision the Court could arrive at,” said Professor Rachel Moran at UCI Law to Fox News Digital. “So, under that approach, the Court would say that they don’t believe that under the First Amendment, academic freedom has any special stature. And because diversity is an expression of the college or university’s freedom to compose its student body, that doesn’t carry any special weight.”
According to Conservative Brief, “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas previously made it clear he’s ready to strike down affirmative action, calling the practice comparable to “bigotry.”
“I note that racial engineering does in fact have insidious consequences,” Thomas wrote, concerning a challenge to an affirmative action program at the University of Texas. “There can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race. But I believe the injury to those admitted under the University’s discriminatory admissions program is even more harmful,” Thomas earlier asserted.
“Blacks and Hispanics admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates,” Thomas adduced.
“The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched,” he continued. “But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete. Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self-confidence of these overmatched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the university than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.”
Source: The Republic Brief