I never thought I’d live to see this happen, but it is!
I have long believed that “affirmative action” was nothing more than reverse discrimination.
Or legal discrimination.
However you want to look at it, Affirmative Action is furthering the exact same discrimination it claims to be fixed. If you’re a white male, you start out in the hole for things like trying to get into college.
That’s right. Thanks to the horribly corrupt Affirmative Action practices, if you take a white male and black male with equal grades and extracurricular actives and everything else, the black male will get extra points on a college application just because they’re black.
Under the goofy theory of Affirmative Action. Actually, no one can quite articulate the exact reasons why it exist. Some claim it is to provide a “level playing field”. Hmmmm, doesn’t seem very level to me. Others claim it is to “right the wrongs of the past.” 50 years later? 75 years later? 100 years later? Really? Still others claim it is to eliminate a culture of racism.
The reason why there are so many excuses for it is because there isn’t really a good justification. It’s just another example of political correctness run amok!
But have no fear, in a surprise story out today, it appears President Trump is putting an END to the SHAM that is is Affirmative Action!
This wasn’t even on my radar as something I expected the Trump Administration to be working on, so I was blown away when I read about it.
If you 100% agree with Trump on this, please LIKE + SHARE this article!
Here are more details, from, of all places, the New York Times:
The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.
Should the Justice Department investigate whether universities are discriminating against white applicants? Join our live discussion Wednesday at 9 p.m. E.S.T. on Facebook.
Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.
“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.
But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s longstanding priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,” performing work that often no one else has the resources or expertise to do.
“This is deeply disturbing,” she said. “It would be a dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.”
The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.
“The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.
John Gore, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, in 2014.CreditAmerican Constitution Society, via YouTube
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.
Mr. Clegg said he would expect the project to focus on investigating complaints the civil rights division received about any university admissions programs.
He also suggested that the project would look for stark gaps in test scores and dropout rates among different racial cohorts within student bodies, which he said would be evidence suggesting that admissions offices were putting too great an emphasis on applicants’ race and crossing the line the Supreme Court has drawn.
Some of that data, he added, could be available through the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which did not respond to a request for comment.