SCOTUS Primed to Strike Down Affirmative Action in Harvard Case

BUCK: I wanted to bring your attention to something else that really needs people to dive in on. You know, we’ve had a massive year for the Supreme Court with the decisions first on firearms in New York written by Justice Thomas, and then of course the biggest Supreme Court decision in many years, overturning Roe v. Wade, which just happened earlier in the summer. But there’s another decision that is coming down the pike, another decision that is relatively imminent. It’s gonna be given this fall, and it’s Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

So just by quick recap, the Students for Fair Admissions representing Asian-American students who are being discriminated against in the admissions process by Harvard University, the most famous and most elite university in the world. I know the Yalies listening to this are upset at that, but I think that’s the perception, for whatever that even means. You know, Harvard/Yale, Coke/Pepsi, who cares? All the same thing, really. In that case, it’s sugar water that’s not good for you. But Harvard/Yale, few other schools you’d probably put in that same tier, the same category, but they’re going to the very top.

And it was fascinating today to see these corporations that are backing affirmative action. They’ve put forth friend of the court briefs, briefs amici, amicus briefs. And here’s Apple, General Motors, and Lyft, among some of the names — those are all very big companies — that are in favor of continuing this practice of affirmative action. This is not a difficult decision as a matter of law. It is unconstitutional, it is a violation of the equal-protection clause to engage in race-based discrimination for any government institution and for any institution that is receiving government money, right?

So that’s where a lot of universities… People say, “Oh, but private universities can do what they want.” Well, are they getting federal government funds? And are they also going to be entirely comfortable continuing to engage in a practice that has been deemed unconstitutional and in fact racist at this level? This is a big issue in America today. You’ve noticed that there is all of this anti-white sentiment that is pushed — often by white liberals — about whiteness and there’s all this talk of white supremacy not to mean actually neo-Nazis or true white supremacists, but they’ll refer to anything that they don’t like.

The left will call anything they don’t like racist, white supremacist as a means of tearing it down. You know, “Capitalism is white supremacy,” they will say. Wait. Hold on a second. “Oh, no, it comes from… Its origins comes from slavery,” they’ll say. This was the whole purpose of the 1619 Project, as we all know, to make it seem that everything in America is in some way tainted and undermined by racism as it exists, if the left doesn’t like the thing. If the left doesn’t like something, it’s racist. That’s really…

Critical race theory really all comes down to everything that the left does not like is racist and will continue to be called racist until it is firmly in the hands of and controlled by the left, and then it will be like racist but a little less racist. That’s the game, and with Students for Fair Admissions policy bringing this, this is now gonna be decided on by the Supreme Court, and all these corporations that have been showing their support for this, when you hear — or in this case read — their arguments in favor of racial discrimination.

Let’s be very clear. This is saying, “This person is Asian. That person is black. I’m going to give one of them a benefit in hiring or in admissions over the other based upon that racial categorization.” That is what affirmative action actually is. By the way, it applies, as we know, to Hispanics. It applies to Native Americans. Well, it applies to everybody because there is this creation of a racial hierarchy for the purposes of hiring and admission. That’s what this is. And this is why Justice O’Connor in — I think it was — Grutter v. Bollinger wrote that at some point we’re gonna not need to do this anymore ’cause it’s pretty unconstitutional.

She didn’t say it that way, but she said we’ll phase this out in 15 years, something like that. And that was close to 15 years ago. We need to stop doing this. It’s an emergency measure that is a violation of the Constitution. A little bit like suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. It’s an emergency measure. We just need affirmative action so badly right now that we’re going to trample on — or, you know, shutting down churches during covid. First Amendment doesn’t really count. It’s an emergency.

Always be causal when the government tells you we need to suspend the Constitution for an emergency ’cause it’s pretty much always wrong. Now, in this instance you have these major companies, these corporations — dozens of them — who want the Supreme Court to affirm racial preferences in college admissions. Now, this is interesting because these are companies that have all engaged in racial preferences in hiring. And it’s fascinating because this is one of the only systems you can think of where you must affirm and celebrate the existence of the system but not talk about it too much.

Don’t bring up too much that there is a advantage in hiring for certain minorities and certain groups that the left feels are “underrepresented” or “underprivileged” or whatever. Know, if you walk around all the time — if you were to walk around your office, say “Wow, there’s a lot of diversity going on here,” depending on who you are, that may actually get you in a lot of trouble just because, “What do you mean? Why are you saying there’s a lot of diversity?” “Well, I thought diversity is to be celebrated.”

“Well, are you Republican? Are you in favor of these different hiring standards that we have?” I actually know somebody. I have a friend who, at a Diversity Day event for his company, got into trouble for saying to somebody, “Well, we certainly are bringing on a lot of diversity.” They didn’t like the tone he used at the diversity hiring event. So it’s interesting, isn’t it? Because they want it, but they don’t want to actually talk about it. They change the standards, but they say, “We’re not changing standards!”

They say it’s not necessary for the people that are hired or admitted, but, by the same token, they’ll tell us that if we get rid of it, we won’t be hiring or admitting the same people. Well, then, they can’t have it both ways, folks. Why are all these major corporations pushing this? One, ’cause they’re run by — you know, they’ve been overtaken by — leftists. Largely because it starts in the H.R. department. The H.R. department is where the diversity commissars congregate first, and then they make sure they push and push and push so there’s more and more diversity-based hiring in the major corporation.

And then all of a sudden, it’s, “Well, we can’t just have a certain percentage that are being hired from this or that underrepresented group. We need at the senior levels! We need… You know, if possible, the CEO should be somebody from one of these groups,” and they will pick, and the H.R. department will get a say in that, a big say in it. And so there are people that are senior roles in all these companies — you have to understand this — who are very much dedicated to the idea that this is not only just but necessary, because they themselves were hired under this rubric.

They themselves were hired with the diversity apparatus in place, and so that’s why if the Supreme Court — and I believe it will — says, “Guys, you really just can’t do this. You can’t tell a bunch of kids applying to Harvard who are Asian that they’ve had it so much easier. You can’t tell first-generation immigrants whose parents came here absolutely penniless from Vietnam or China or wherever, and who’ve been working their fingers and their eyes off, just working so hard.” Working their butts off, I was gonna say. “You can’t tell them, ‘Sorry. We’re actually gonna take somebody else because we need more of that color.

“’We need more of that ethnicity.’ That’s a violation of equal protection of the Constitution,” and for any entity that is taking federal funds, which you start to look at that list, they can’t do that. They can’t do that. And that’s why I think this is such an interesting case, because there’s so much… I mean, the Democrat Party is ruled by this sense of white guilt. And the people that is right most invested in this are white liberals who just, “Oh, my gosh. I’m just… I’m doing my best to confront white supremacy, and that’s why I have five Ukraine flags!” What? It doesn’t matter.

They just know that that’s what the good people are supposed to say. It’s completely intellectually indefensible, self-contradictory and absurd. But they know, this is what the good people say. So they say it. But you’re going to see, I think, a big change here because the policies of racial discrimination that have existed under this framework of affirmative action for decades now were wrong. They are unconstitutional, certainly unconstitutional in college admissions, certainly unconstitutional as it pertains to federal government action, and these companies that write these things, I mean, this is…

For example, in this amicus brief, “Empirical studies confirm that diverse groups make better decisions thanks to increased creativity, sharing of ideas, and accuracy, and diverse groups can better understand and serve the increasingly diverse population that uses their products and services.” What does that even mean? They’re saying, just to be clear, these are major companies in this country that have all been engaged in diversity-based hiring for a long time. I have a friend who was pretty high up in hiring at one of the biggest investment banks, and she told me all about the diversity hiring stuff that goes on.

And everyone sits there, and they know. We’re looking at people… Some people have really high grades and really relevant work experience. Other people have much lower grades, much lower SATs. But need diversity. So we’re gonna make decisions based upon that. And you say that and people say, “Oh, but that’s… Why are you tell…? This is the system.” If they’re comfortable with it, they should be saying, “Yeah, of course!” There shouldn’t be any question about this. If it’s such a good thing and so necessary, it makes for better decision-making…

You know, Justice Sotomayor will be weighing in on this one. What was Justice Sotomayor’s LSAT score? What were her LSATs? I’m just wondering. She went to Columbia Law School. Anyone want to place a bet that it wasn’t anywhere near the average for all admitted students at Columbia Law School? She’s very likely a beneficiary herself — likely, I don’t know — of affirmative action policies in hiring, affirmative action policies at Columbia University. I have friends who have worked in admissions at some of the top colleges and universities.

They will all tell you that this is going on all the time. Asian kids with perfect schools, perfect SATs, perfect grades, are told, “Sorry, no room here for you. We need to take somebody who is one-fourth part of a Native American tribe, has a grandparent — who is officially a member of a Native American tribe.” That’s justice in America today, higher education says. I’m sorry, but just on principle. It’s unconstitutional. It’s wrong. And all these companies don’t want to admit this.

The same way that the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood and all this don’t want people to realize what has really gone on here. So flagrantly unconstitutional, so flagrantly immoral. Same thing is true about affirmative action in this country for decades now. It has been expanded beyond its early indications and what they are trying to accomplish. It now includes all kinds of different groups, and it’s used in ways that it was never intended to be used, and it’s been stretched out for decades. It’s wrong. It’s wrong. So let’s see. I think it’s gonna be a huge Supreme Court decision, and I’m very hopeful.