“The student should be treated based on their experiences as an individual, not based on their race,” argued Chief Justice John Roberts.
The decision of the six conservative judges of the Highest Court locates within the Constitution the line of brake to a tendency in the last decades of the well-known and controversial ethnic quotas in higher education centers, which over time became another discriminatory tool.
The examples are innumerable within the frustration of white American parents and children or white foreigners who, on more than a few occasions, have been deprived of their intelligence, capacity and IQ, of a prominent future, by the simple “progressive” trend ( socialist) that has reversed the real discrimination suffered by blacks and Latinos more than half a century ago in the US to give way to an imposing and partisan chapter of US history based on glimpsing the presence of minorities in society in the midst of segregation to The whites.
The vast majority of the American people, regardless of partisan and ideological affiliation, appreciate the importance of society defending the values and rights of each person regardless of skin color, race, sex or origin. And it is a subject that becomes irrefutable in the modern era.
Conservative magistrates considered that universities are free to consider the personal experience of an applicant, for example if he suffered racism, when weighing his application against others more academically qualified. But decide, mainly depending on whether it is white or black, it is not allowed, it is in itself racial discrimination, they assured. “Our constitutional history does not tolerate that option,” Roberts added.
Following the civil rights movement of the 1960s, several highly selective colleges introduced racial and ethnic criteria into their admissions procedures to redress inequalities stemming from America’s segregationist past.
Known as “positive discrimination,” the policy once helped increase the proportion of black, Hispanic or American Indian students in classrooms, but it has long been the target of criticism in conservative circles, where it is seen as dark and racist.
The Supreme Court has ruled against quotas on several occasions since 1978, but has always authorized universities to take into account racial criteria, among others.
Until now, the High Court had considered “legitimate” the search for greater diversity on campus, even if it meant breaking the principle of equality among all Americans.
This Thursday’s change was applauded by conservatives who saw what the constitutional laws specify come back.
“This is a great day for the United States (…) We are going to return to everything based on merit, and that’s how it should be!” Former President Donald Trump (2017-2021) wrote on his social network -Truth Social ).
The slogan of the left
And predictably, President Joe Biden said he “strongly disagreed.”
“Discrimination still exists in the United States,” he said. “Today’s decision does not change that. It is a simple fact that if a student has had to overcome adversity on their path to education, universities should recognize and value it.”
“We cannot allow this decision to be the last word,” added the President, for whom “this is not a normal court.”
Biden has repeatedly discredited Supreme Court decisions that uphold the conservative values on which this great nation was founded.
Today the liberals in the country are determined to transform traditional conservative capitalism into an experiment in the cultural maxim in the greatest power on the planet.
Some argue that the so-called “positive discrimination” helps remove minorities from poverty and crime, but in the US there are multiple state and federal programs for this purpose, as well as curricula in “colleges” that expand the possibilities.
The US state and federal governments, educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, foundations, and banks offer benefit programs to millions of low-income families so that children and adolescents can get out of a hostile environment that is unfavorable to their future. .
These contributions include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP), Affordable Care Act (ACA), subsidized housing and public housing projects, Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or Welfare), Credit Earned Income Tax (EITC), Head Star Program with comprehensive education services; Federal Pell Grant Program, Medicaid.
The universities do not constitute an entity to determine or implement policies or laws, for that there is a Congress, a Constitution and a judicial system.
Universities should serve to stimulate knowledge competition, reward talent and contribute to the development of society and science, and not to impose political goals or tendencies under misguided criteria of appreciation that in the long run end up in counterproductive consequences.
Historically, liberal political trends label population segments in search of an impossible social equity that marks erroneous trends in the coexistence of human beings. The false prism of equality does not work even from the biological roots of Man. The human being by nature is diverse, different: from his fingerprints to his behavior, personality, attitudes, nationality, family education, etc.
What should not be limited is the right and the possibilities to demonstrate individual human capacity. Any trade or profession play a fundamental role within societies and not necessarily as university graduates.
Race, skin color, nationality or social origin cannot become a right superior nor in a fundamental condition for the triumph or to open doors under the social victimization which amplifies left-wing or “progressive” (socialist) ideology.
Competition -as an intrinsic step of Western Capitalism- has been the engine of development of societies, which has promoted technology and scientific advances in all areas of human life. Killing that incentive and going out into the world with the simple advantage of skin or race is just the direct path to failure and racism.
The three progressive justices of the US Supreme Court raised criticism of the ruling, the greatest danger for a judicial entity that must enforce the laws and individual rights embodied in the US Constitution, not defend partisan dogmas or liberal ideological tendencies and socialists contrary to this great conservative nation, and who have also shown (for decades) that they only serve as an instrument for the destruction of economic prosperity, democracy and as a disarticulation of social harmony.
The court is “reversing decades of case law and progress,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
“In doing so, the court cements a superficial norm” of indifference to skin color “as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society,” it added.
This has been the historic slogan on which the left and the extreme left in the US continue to ride and which, even in the 21st century and with the 180 degree turn that American society has taken on racism, convince millions of people and they encourage them to foment divisions and revolutions. It is the totally different country that they do not want and that elected for two terms and, by a notable white majority, a person of the black race as president of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama.
The Supreme Court ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2014 against the oldest private and public universities in the United States: Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
