Will Cain Country - Breaking! Affirmative Action Struck Down!

Episode Date: June 30, 2023

Today, Will sounds off on the landmark Supreme Court affirmative action decision, which held that the current race-based admissions decisions in place at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The ruling effectively ends affirmative action in American universities.   Will explains why the decision was a bad day for racists and another step in the right direction of truly race-blind and equal opportunities for all.    Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today was a bad day for racism, wearing the mask, wearing the disguise of anti-racism. Today was a good day for the Constitution. The best way to eliminate racial discrimination is to eliminate racial discrimination is to eliminate all racial discrimination. The Supreme Court of the United States strikes a blow against affirmative action. It's the Wilcane podcast on Fox News podcast. What's up and welcome to Friday. As always, I hope you will download rate and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast.

You can watch the WillCame podcast on Rumble or on YouTube. Breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States has struck down the policies of Harvard and North Carolina that discriminate on the basis of race. The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down affirmative action. An entire episode into understanding how it is today we have arrived at so far the most enlightened moment of race relations. and the United States of America. Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Those are the words of the Supreme Court in a majority opinion striking down both Harvard and UNC's affirmative action programs. I quote from the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the court has held that the Equal Protection Clause, that's of the 14th Amendment, applies without regard to any differences of race or color or nationality. It is universal in its application. For the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. For the better part of 50 years, the United States has attempted to alleviate past racial discrimination with present and future racial discrimination. Affirmative action has been a debate. cast in amber, crystallized, stuck in time, not unlike abortion since the 1970s.

Since that time, the Supreme Court gave universities the license to discriminate on the basis of race in pursuit of varying standards, the most recent of which would have tried to satisfy the ever-ambiguous goal of diversity. Let us today dive into this opinion, understand the rationality. now of the Supreme Court, what it means for the present, and more importantly, what it means for the future, and analyze the fallout. Because in my estimation, what we will see today is, and I say this, in all sobriety, the racists take off their mask. You can barely distinguish the words of today's Democrats from, well, the words of 1950s Democrats. You can

barely distinguish the words of Senator Dick Durbin from the one-time governor of Alabama, George Wallace. When John Roberts was looking for confirmation as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he famously said the best way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It took 25 years roughly for the Supreme Court to recognize its own standard. In 2003, the Supreme Court said maybe affirmative action, maybe for 25 years. The Supreme Court in this decision today said 20 years later, there's no end in sight.

The court said, enough is enough. In that 2003 opinion by the name of Grutter, it has been 25 years, they wrote, since Justice Powell first approve the use of race to further the interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. That dates back to 1978. They wrote, we expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. Here we are 20 years removed from 2003, and Supreme Court has finally ended the policies of racism. They wrote this week, 20 years later, no end is in sight.

Harvard's view about when race admissions will end doesn't have a date on it. Neither does UNCs. Yet both insist that the use of race and their admissions program must continue. But we have permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny. They may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and at some point they must end. Respondent's admission systems, however, well-intentioned and implemented in faith, fail each of those criteria. They must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Race is used. Race is allowed as a discriminating factor in law. It is admirable to believe that we should arrive at a point, and it is night. Eve to believe we have already begun to craft laws that do not take into account race. The Supreme Court has held, though, through various times that it is impossible to live in a colorblind society. There are times when race will have to be taken into account. But if states are to pass laws that on their face recognize, discriminate, based upon race, well, then they're going to have to pass a certain type of judicial test, the highest of judicial

tests. Why the highest? Because the 14th Amendment requires us to not discriminate on the basis of race. So if we are going to, you have to pass what the Supreme Court has said in the past is strict scrutiny. Race-based admission standards have always had trouble passing any type of strict scrutiny. For example, in the cases of Harvard and UNC, it's pointed out, as Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out for decades, it's impossible to define diversity. What is diversity? This is the type of standard. This is the type of goal that higher education has used to excuse itself from the constitutional prohibition on racism. Well, we're going to look at a candidate's race because we are pursuing the higher standard of diversity.

Thomas has pointed out on several occasions, what is it about a white student and a black student sitting side by side that makes each student inherently smarter? Now look, you and I anecdotally, instinctually, conversationally, can say exposure to different viewpoints and people of different backgrounds and people of different races has a positive. effect on any given individual, but you can't quantify why that makes for a better higher education environment. It cannot be explained. It defies rational, objective language. It sits, it exists in this magical ephirma. And do all these words that defy definition. What is diversity? When do you accomplish diversity? What student body ratio is diverse?

What is cross racial understanding? No one can say. And Supreme Court recognizes that Harvard and UNC have not sufficiently been able to say or to define diversity. The Supreme Court wrote in this opinion, although these are commendable. goals, they're not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny. At the outset, it's unclear how the court is supposed to measure any of these goals. These goals, these words, says the Supreme Court, are incoherent. Richard Hanania, who is the president of c-s-P-I Center.org, which is a self-described center for the study of partisanship and

ideology. He also, the fellow U.T. Austin, formerly of Columbia, who has some opinions who at times I have found offensive. At other times has opinions that I find interesting. On the whole, it makes him somebody who I find interesting. Characterizes the Supreme Court's inability to define diversity, or anyone's ability to define adversity, diversity, or cross-racial understanding, or even the definition of race important. For example, the Supreme Court asked, are South and East Asians the same? Why don't you consider Arabs?

What are Hispanics exactly? Such a non-sensical system cannot be justified. In fact, during oral arguments, the lawyer for the University of North Carolina was asked how Arabs are considered under their system. I quote now from the opinion, when I asked at oral arguments, how are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified, such as Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt?

UNC's counsel responded, I do not know the answer to that question. They don't even know how race itself satisfies the elusive goal of diversity. They can't even, in essence, define race. Who's black? Who's white? what percentage of your parental lineage needs to be satisfied

to fit the definition of any particular race therefore satisfying the definition of any particular diversity it's all nonsensical and what it results in is the rationale of schools not limited to UNC and Harvard but like UNC and Harvard to a policy of

trust us bro Seriously. Just trust the experts. We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are

truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. Justice Roberts said the university's main response to these criticisms is essentially trust us. I'm quoting from the opinion. None of the questions recited above need answering, they say, because universities are o' deference when using race to benefit some applicants but not others. The Supreme Court writes in response. universities may define their missions as they see fit.

The Constitution defines ours. Far left Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson wrote, in her dissenting opinion, that we should defer to universities and experts in determining who should be discriminated against. Like every other thing in our society now, we have to defer to the so-called self-styled, validated experts who behind closed doors insulated from the necessity to define words and insulated from the necessity to lay out their standards concoct a mechanism that discriminates on the basis of the race of race that would shield them from the protections of the Constitution

based upon what they believe is a standard that satisfies strict scrutiny. Trust us, bro. That wasn't good enough. for the Supreme Court of the United States. I love this sentence from the Supreme Court. Equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to another, to a person of another color.

This ideology, this rationale by the Supreme Court is, yes, clearly a rejection of modern-day anti-racism. It's a rejection of critical race theory. It's a rejection of Ibram X. Kendi. There is an ideology, clearly, in the United States of America, that has taken over higher education, taken over most of our government policies,

that believes racism can only flow in one direction. That policies cannot hurt black Americans, but policies can, in fact, help black Americans. Justice Thomas addressed that in his concurring opinion in this Supreme Court case. He said, that is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to think that you can craft a policy that exclusively helps black Americans. Because that is inherently racist. It's a zero-sum game.

Admissions, there are only so many. That's what the respondents, UNC and Harvard, tried to argue. They tried to argue. Look, nobody's hurt here. We don't dock anybody for their race. Nobody gets a negative. But some individuals, some races, get a positive. Supreme Court went through both UNCs and Harvard's admissions process,

this black box of trust the experts, of trust us bros. And what they found is, for example, when it comes to Harvard, the first step in the process, the first weeding out process, the first step into considering admissions, they factored in race. Then it went to a secondary board, a second set of experts wherein they looked at applications

and once again, they considered the element of race. And then finally, when they got to the real cut in line, when they just got down to the final ones, the ones that made it across

the finish line, who will be admitted to Harvard? They once again considered race. UNC did the same, considering race a plus factor. But of course, in a zero-sum game, a plus for one is a negative for another. And you could see it play out.

It was racism. Racial discrimination, modern-day anti-racism, racism against white students and Asian-American students. Look at these statistics. The court put in a helpful chart. Between 2009 and 2008 is laid out, as observed and then laid out. It's observed and then laid out by again Richard Hanania. These are the percentages of admitted students. Blacks 10 to 12 percent, Asian 17 to 20 percent, Hispanics, 8 to 12 percent.

What are the odds, the experts, are not balancing admissions, the question is asked, against some idea of diversity, against some quota that fits. representation within the population, meaning mirrors the population. But that has a real cost, as I mentioned. If you were in the top 10%, something like that, black Americans had, I believe it is, a four times likely chance of getting in, as did an Asian American student. black students in the 50th percentile had a better chance of getting in than Asian American students in the top 10 percentile.

The place that really hurt students of certain races, white and Asian, was if you found yourself in the second and third percentile, if you were in this meaning quartiles, not percentile but quartiles. If you were top 10 percent, say you were a top 10 percent student and you were an Asian, you still had a high, high likelihood that you would get in. roughly the same likelihood as a black student at the median point in the top 40 to 50 percent but you still had a high likelihood to get in but if you fell outside that top whatever tier top 10 percent top quartile if you fell into the second or third tier oh now you were in trouble now your odds dropped markedly down to 50 percent and below 50 percent while black students in that same tier in that same quartile saw their admissions rates vastly exceed proportion that zero-sum game, whether or not you gave a negative demerit to Asian or white students and only gave a positive merit to black students, resulted in racial discrimination against Asian and white students. That's the big unwritten part of affirmative action. It was reverse racism. And for some reason, racism against white people falls on deaf ears, finds very little empathy, finds very little sympathy. Maybe that's because it's always said that way.

Ellie Mistle, who's one of the most racist people in the United States of America, who somehow is some kind of law professor and more understandably is MSNBC contributor, talked on and on about how white folks, even white liberals, he always uses the word term white folks, stop supporting affirmative action the minute their kid, their cherub. He describes it, dehumanizing the child of white folks, doesn't get in. Yeah, because when you take any injustice, it's hard to see in the macro. I mean, no, no, you can see it. You can see it in the stats. But it doesn't, it still falls on deaf ears. It's not until you see an individual. does the injustice trigger empathy?

And you're talking about real human beings, real individuals. White kids? Doesn't do it for you? Okay. Asian students who are suffering at the hands of government, public institution, discrimination, at least was suffering from government, public institution. education, discrimination, not after this decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts writes, while the dissent would certainly not permit university

programs from discriminating against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let programs here continue. In its view, this court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. And of course, by extension, the right races to be punished. Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson, as I mentioned earlier, had some of the most nonsensical, the most offensive opinions in this entire decision. She wrote the following. With Let Them Eat Cake Obliviousness today, the majority pulls the rip cord and announces

colorblindness for all by legal fiat seems like a laudable goal colorblindness for all but deeming race irrelevant she goes on in law does not make it so in life and having so detached itself from the country's actual past and present experiences the court has now been lured into interfering with crucial work that unc and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve america's real world problems no one benefits from ignorance although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways. Today's ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority's perspective is that it precedes ostrich-like from the hope that preventing consideration

of race will end racism. It's a good start. Stop focusing on race to end racism. She writes, but if it's if that's the motivation the majority proceeds in vain if the college of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters it will not just go away it will take longer for racism to leave us and ultimately ignoring race just makes it matter more ignoring race just makes it matter more this is the mindset of not just cantanji brown jackson that statement is being retweeted and high-fived across the internet it is the belief of the modern day quote unquote anti-racist that the real way to achieve enlightenment is to re-segregate oh they've definitely pursued resegregation black graduation white graduation black safe spaces black student union no whites allowed spaces it's to obsessively focus on race in every aspect of our society race has never been more prominent I should say that was a hyperbolic statement, overstatement. Race has not been so important since the 1950s. At this point, I want to point you to with memories of the 1950s, a statement by Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Dick Durbin, the majority whip and the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat from Illinois, wrote today on Twitter,

I'm disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, effectively barring the use of race admissions as a factor in college admissions. George Wallace could not have said it better. Those words easily could have been said from the mouth of the segregationist governor. In the 1950s of Alabama, George Wallace. I'm disappointed today's ruling effectively bars the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Of course, the most enlightened opinions in this entire exercise came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who for years, as I had mentioned, has been trying to figure out what it means.

what is the definition of diversity? Because he and now the court at large is understood, if that goal remains elusive, then so does the end of racial discrimination. It's affirmative action into eternity as long as the goal remains undefined. Contagy Brown-Jackson lays out this case that somehow gets high-fives on the internet,

but can't say when America will stop discriminating on the basis of race. There are others, like Justinjointed, as Sotomayor, who said, well, we should end affirmative action when we arrive at the end of racial discrimination. But you're perpetuating racial discrimination. So what you're saying is, at the moment, the biggest race hustlers in America decide that their grift is done and they no longer need any of the riches and wealth and prestige

that comes along with creating racial divides in America. Then and only then, well, the last thing across the finish line of reaching racial Enlightenment and racial equality will be the end of affirmative action. We'll be right back with more of the Will Cain podcast. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people.

Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com. This was a good day. This was a really good day for America. It's not the end. Sean Davis of the Federalists made a really good point. He wrote on Twitter that universities have fallen so far into, in fact, defined as their mission, racism, that you can't think they're going to simply give it up. He wrote, I hope conservatives understand that this case is the beginning of the war, not the end. the university cartel, which is responsible for much of the DEI nonsense being foisted on the country

from every major institution of power is not going to stop, not going to just stop being racist. Identity-based exclusion is built into the firmware of the college credentialing machine. He's absolutely correct. He wrote, what you should expect to see is what left-wing states do when the Supreme Court holds up and enforces the Second Amendment. they will either ignore the decision or change one or two tiny things on the margin, pretend they've complied, and then force the victims of their lawlessness to spend another decade or two trying to get the original decision enforced.

D.C. has been doing this with Heller, a Second Amendment case, for 15 years, and New York is in the process of doing it again with Bruin. The college cartel is no different. And he is right. It will be tied up in a... appeals and lawsuits before it ultimately arrives once again at the Supreme Court. It's too much a part of who they are. But one thing they will find waiting for them once again when they arrive at the Supreme Court is this from Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote,

despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. In parentheses, a dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with a majority opinion. It's actually comedy. What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows, and the prohibition against racial discrimination is leveled at the thing. What he's talking about is, for example, this based off the dissenting opinions of Cantonji Brown Jackson and Justice Sotomayor. someone by the name of Asha Rangapa, self-described admissions officer.

She wrote, in my opinion, the Harvard U.N.C. opinion is much narrower than I expected it to be, and its impact will be much less than I see a lot of people suggesting, and possibly giving institutions more ability to curate classes based on diversity interest. She goes on, the implicit question here is the one the justices disagree on. Can race be a proxy for experience? the dissent says yes and the majority says no race can't be a proxy but what this means is applicants whose identity is shaped by race will need to articulate that explicitly in order to be taken into account this is an added burden on the applicant but most applications include a supplemental

diversity essay already however it seems to me that in making more explicit how a student's background impacts experience perspective schools will have a much easier time I'm defending why race mattered in admitting that person. My point is that this decision seems to be giving more latitude for subjective and holistic admissions on a case-by-case basis, and it becomes harder to argue that someone should not have been admitted when their race was taken into account. She said, it might need to be explicit, an application essay, how is your race impacting your experience?

But what they're going to have to come face to face with is the opinion of the majority, not the dissent. And that you can't, in saying that you can't game the thing, you can't game the substance. You have to stop. You have to stop being racist. He's got to stop discriminating against Asians. You've got to stop discriminating against white people. You've got to stop sounding like George Washington. You've got to stop with your neo-racism wearing the mask, wearing the costume of anti-racism.

Stop the charade. You can't define diversity. You can't define race. Stop being racist. And to that already, though, we have heard, for example, from the former president of the United States, Barack Obama saying, what a tragedy. Michelle and I would not have gotten to where we were without affirmative action. Interesting admission that you needed this aid, that you did not get there on your own merit. The current sitting president of the United States, President Joe Biden,

saying, we cannot allow this to be the final word. No, no, no. This fight has just been. gun but today was a big win in the battle for America of moving beyond race. The Supreme Court striking down affirmative action. A good day. A bad day for racists. A good day for the Constitution. A good day for America. That's going to do it for me today here on the Will Kame podcast. Next week I'll be hosting the 8 p.m. show. We've got a big lineup as well right here on the will cane podcast during our weekend and our week of the fourth of july where we will talk to a candidate for president of the united states miami mayor francis sworez and we talk about the censorship coming to america washing on the shores of the eastern seaboard from the european union

that's coming up next week here on the will cane podcast listen to ad free with a fox news podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show ad-free on the Amazon Music app. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts.