Report: Trump to Take University Affirmative Action Policies to Court

Affirmative Action in university admissions is race replacement. It replaces highly qualified white and Asian students with less qualified blacks, browns, trans, queers, illegals, and whatever other groups are deemed victims of white male oppression.

Once the preferred students are in, then the universities have to lower standards (grade inflation, for example) in order to push them along to graduation.

Just as the mainstream media is rotten to the core, so is American higher education.

New York Times Via NOLA

WASHINGTON — 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 minorities 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 Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.

Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations 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 long-standing 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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court most recently addressed affirmative action admissions policies in a 2016 case, voting 4-3 to uphold a race-conscious program at the University of Texas at Austin. But there are several pending lawsuits challenging such practices at other high-profile institutions, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Justice Department has not taken a position in those cases.

The pending start of the affirmative action project — division lawyers who want to work on it must submit their resumes by Aug. 9, the announcement said — joins a series of changes involving civil rights law since Trump’s inauguration.

In a lawsuit challenging Texas’ strict voter identification law, the Justice Department switched its position, dropping the claim that the law was intentionally discriminatory and later declaring that the law has been fixed. Sessions has also made clear he is not interested in using consent decrees to impose reforms on troubled police departments and has initiated a sweeping review of existing agreements.

Zimbabwe 2.0: South Africa President Proposes Land “Expropriation Without Compensation”

South Africa’s monkey president was much in evidence at the now concluded G20 conference in Hamburg. I wonder if the West had the guts to confront Jacob Zuma. I can’t find anything about that in reports that came out of G20. Apparently, South Africa’s whites are on their own. Now, to include having their land stolen from them and given to blacks, who will have no idea what to do with it.

The same thing will happen and is happening in America, Europe, and Australia, only far more subtly. As the new white minority emerges in the West, the white property owner will be targeted and his property “expropriated” (stolen).

IQ Research reports that the average IQ in South Africa is 77. Remove the white population and it’s not a bad guess to think that the average would drop to around 70, which is functionally retarded.

Western countries should welcome our white brothers and sisters into our open arms. Nonwhites get hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits by moving to the West. Whites would produce, not parasite.

Excerpt from Zerohedge

With every passing day the formerly booming nation of South Africa is getting ever closer to the formerly banana republic of Zimbabwe.

On Wednesday, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress proposed at its 5th annual national policy conference that in addition to potentially nationalizing [4]the country’s central bank, that land expropriation without compensation should be allowed where it is “necessary and unavoidable,” President Jacob Zuma said.

There was a hard push from supporters of President Jacob Zuma for a decision on the redistribution of land without compensation‚ which would necessitate a change to the constitution. But as the Sunday Times reported [5], according to the ANC’s economic transformation subcommittee head‚ Enoch Godongwana‚ both this proposal and the current system of redistribution with compensation remain on the table for debate by branches. Zuma‚ however‚ hinted in his closing address that there could be legislative changes for expropriation without compensation.

“We agree on the imperative to accelerate land redistribution and land reform. Again we had robust discussions on the modalities to achieve this. We agree that using the fiscus for land redistribution must be accompanied by other measures if we are to achieve the goal at the required pace,” said Zuma in his closing remarks at the six-day conference held in Johannesburg.

“Where it is necessary and unavoidable this might include expropriation without compensation‚” Zuma said.

As discussed several months ago [6], land will be a key issue ahead of a December conference where a successor to Zuma will be chosen. The two current frontrunners are Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, former African Union chair and Zuma’s ex-wife. As a reminder [7], Dlamini-Zuma has made land redistribution from whites to blacks without compensation one of her main policies.

The policy conference – which has been the top news item in South Africa for the past six days – made a dramatic turn-around and ditched the term “white monopoly capital” as being the main hindrance to the rapid socio-economic transformation of the black majority. Most of the delegates appeared to have given President Jacob Zuma and his supporters the thumbs down on this issue. They have recently used the term “white monopoly capital” in what appears to be an attempt to regain lost support among the masses.

We Need TOTAL Sex and Race Equality in the USA NOW

walter-williams

Dr. Walter E. Williams is a great American, a first rank saboteur. He constantly calls out the hypocrisy propogated by mindless egalitarians. Being a distinguished Professor of Economics at the prestigious George Mason University gives him a bigger voice than that enjoyed my most Americans.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, Dr. Williams calls for total gender and race equality in the USA. Sample:

Jews are only 3 percent of the U.S. population, but they take 39 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates. That’s a gross disparity, for which there is no moral justification. Ask any academic, intellectual, or civil rights leader and he’ll tell you that equality and diversity means that people are to be represented across socioeconomic lines according to their numerical representation in the population. The fact that Jews are 39 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates can mean only one thing — they are taking the rightful Nobel laureates of other racial groups.

Jews are not the only people taking more than their fair share of things. Blacks are 13 percent of the population but have taken nearly 80 percent of the player jobs in the National Basketball Association. Compounding that injustice, they are highest-paid NBA players. Blacks are also guilty of taking 66 percent, an unfair share, of professional football jobs.

Any American sharing the value of race and sex equality and diversity should find these and other differences offensive and demand that the liberal and progressive elements in society eliminate them.

Read Dr. Williams ironic argument for coed prisons and more here. If you have a brain, he’ll make you think about the propaganda about equality spewed out by the globalist New World Order. And he’ll likely put a smile on your face unless you’re one of the liberals and progressives he challenges with his sharp wit and keen mind.