Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Supreme Court Decision on Racial Preferences in College Recruiting Should Doom Much of DEI in State Institutions of Higher Learning

—

by

sherlockj
in

by James C. Sherlock

It is the day to celebrate America’s freedoms.  It is also a good day to enforce them.

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supreme Court decisions in the Harvard and UNC cases make unambiguously unconstitutional many elements of the way Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is currently implemented in colleges and universities.

For example, clearly there is no legal space between unconstitutional processes in the recruiting of students and the same processes in the recruiting and promotion of faculty.

None.

No state shall…. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

More broadly, one can conclude it is illegal to treat students, faculty or staff differently in any way because of their races. Or their viewpoints.

It appears, therefore, that much of what the DEI bureaucracies currently do in state institutions of higher learning (IHL) has been defined by the Court as unacceptable under the 14th Amendment.

The Governor should ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the matter and act on that opinion.

Counsels for the state IHLs can already advise their clients based upon the Supreme Court decisions.

They are appointed by the AG and coordinate policy with his office.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

41 responses to “Supreme Court Decision on Racial Preferences in College Recruiting Should Doom Much of DEI in State Institutions of Higher Learning”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    $1 says, “just the opposite.”

    1. Carter Melton Avatar
      Carter Melton

      Does the size of your wager reflect the strength of your conviction :)….just asking

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        A wager is a wager, but if you want odds, well then my $1 to your penny. The article view is dying with the Boomers.

  2. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    I think you have to draw a distinction between affirmative action and DEI. The former insofar as it pertains to the use of race as a factor in admissions/hiring decisions is likely over. The latter, as it pertains to diversity as an institutional goal is not over, and the ruling had no bearing on it.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      DEI, in practice, is an affirmative action infrastructure.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        You’d have to prove that. And the decision from last week doesn’t touch DEI as a concept; rather, it affects the practice of affirmative action in furtherance of the aim of racial diversity. I know you’d like the decision to be farther reaching, but it’s not.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Read the documentation that I and Jim Bacon have provided in extensive reporting about UVa and Virginia Tech about:
          1. the requirements of statements of support for DEI – compelled speech – required of applicants for any position at those universities;
          2. affirmative action in hiring and promotions at both schools;
          3. relentless attacks by DEI staff investigators on faculty opponents of affirmative action at UVa;
          4. The ubiquitous speech police at Tech that inspired an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

          Go to the BR search feature, search DEI and you’ll find it.

          Not without irony, look at the article about the hires at UVa for the newly-funded DEI positions themselves.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Leaving aside the hyperbole in your post, I think you’re reading far too much into the ruling last week. As I said, the decision covered affirmative action in college admissions. It has implications beyond that, but it was intentionally a narrow ruling in that it carved out the military academies (implicitly acknowledging that racial diversity is a compelling interest in other contexts), and allowed for consideration of race on an individualized basis. Go look at the decision, it’s right there. This is not some kind of Gettysburg of the culture war, though predictably you’re treating it as such.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I have asked Sherlock to provide a DEI policy that specifically calls for using race as the primary deciding factor in hiring and promotion decisions at or IHLs. He has (so far) refused to do so, instead referring me to the BR search engine as he did to you. Ok, so left to my own devices, I identified the following as the closest thing he has presented to date that he points to as evidence of an affirmative action program within the DEI organization at UVa:

            “What does the DDEI do?

            …Participate in the faculty search and hiring process. At a minimum: join the AD for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the search launch meeting with HR and the search chair, review the position description prior to posting, assist with the outreach to diverse candidates, provide feedback regarding the search process (including but not limited to rubric and criteria for long and shortlists of candidates), and meets with candidates during interviews.”

            I can’t find the word “race” here at all. What do you think? Is this an affirmative action policy? Does the recent decision now outlaw this? Should these DDEIs be terminated?

          3. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            As I said, it’s a pretty narrow ruling. It does not outlaw DEI as an institutional goal. It says that racial diversity is not a compelling interest such that institutions can use race as part of admissions criteria for achieving diversity. But it does allow for individualized consideration of race. Taken as a whole, this means you can’t use race as a proxy for hardship, but it can still be a consideration. If Sherlock would like to test his theory, he should find a plaintiff and file suit.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    There are lots of things that can be done to increase diversity without using race as a factor in admissions. First, eliminate legacy admissions. Look at economic status; families where no one in the direct line has attended college; look at zip codes where college attendance is low; use the Texas top-ten percent of high school graduates from each school guaranteed admission to colleges; fire a huge number of administrators in public schools and use the proceeds to help low-income families; look at people with high school educations that, later in life, wish to attend college fire a huge number of administrators in colleges and universities and use the proceeds to fund scholarships for low-income students; look at applicants who have worked menial jobs to fund their education.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      “First, eliminate legacy admissions. Look at economic status;” This is dead on. I think we can all agree that this practice needs to end. But I still have yet to hear whether The Jeff Council supports the end of legacy admissions. Shouldn’t this be a no-brainer?

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    During my DEI training there was no mention of race or discrimination. It does sound as if you wish to discriminate against anyone who believes that DEI is a worthy goal for our institutions though.

    1. Carter Melton Avatar
      Carter Melton

      Not discriminate against….just understand that they are unable to discern between life’s fleeting (and often toxic) vanities and it’s enduring values.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Read the piece again. Tell me if you can the difference between:
      1. race-based student admissions procedures that the Court ruled illegal; and
      2. race-based faculty recruiting and promotion processes, especially at state IHLs.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Again, was never even suggested that we should recruit or promote based on race in my DEI training… not even a whisper…

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Did your organization, like the state’s IHE, assign DEI officials:
          – to every hiring and promotion board?
          – to every disciplinary board?
          – to every department and division?

          Did your organization chase political dissenters away?

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Did your organization, like the state’s IHE, assign DEI officials:
          – to every hiring and promotion board?
          – to every disciplinary board?
          – to every department and division?

          Did your organization chase political dissenters away?

        3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Did your organization, like the state’s IHE, assign DEI officials:
          – to every hiring and promotion board?
          – to every disciplinary board?
          – to every department and division?

          Did your organization chase political dissenters away?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            They are called HR…

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            The IHE’s have HR as well. DEI is a separate organization, as you well know.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            A private company is more efficient than the State government… who knew… Actually much of the IHL DEI existed already… as you well know. So here is your challenge, please cite an actual DEI policy that specifically states that IHL must now hire and promote based on race. Certainly you have read them given your call for AG action…

          4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Bacon and I have written extensively on that point. Use the search feature to look them up.

            You will find that the pre-existing bureaucracy was in support of federal civil rights laws. We both support that.

            The big expansions of DEI were a result of the happy surrender of the progressive leaders of the schools to the woke mobs in the streets in the summer of 2020.

            That is when the very Constitutional Amendments that were passed after the Civil War to ensure equal treatment under the law began to be violated.

            You will find extensive evidence of that. Enjoy.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I have read most everything you and JAB have written. Never have I seen any DEI policy associated with any IHL that has called for hiring or promotion based solely on race. I have seen you often claim that is the logical extension of some statement or guidance but that is your opinion with no supporting corroboration in fact. My experience with DEI (have you any?) does not support anything you claim.

        4. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Ha ha, you’re so funny. Amazing you will say that with a straight face. But apparently that comes with trollishness.

    3. Carter Melton Avatar
      Carter Melton

      Not discriminate against….just understand that they are unable to discern between life’s fleeting (and often toxic) vanities and it’s enduring values.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        There are few uglier traits than this tendency — witnessed in men no worse than their neighbors — to grow cruel, merely because they possessed the power of inflicting harm. -Nathaniel Hawthorne, writer (4 Jul 1804-1864)

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          So the equal protection of laws is now cruelty. Got it.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The value of a law is measured not by the good when applied as intended, but by the harm when applied incorrectly.

            They’ve just completed an engineering survey of the Supreme Court building. Odd they are interested in maintaining the integrity of a building that has none inside.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            maintaining the integrity of a building that has none inside.

            Especially those 3 dissenting votes? Funny, it never occurred to me that the court was a monolith of disintegrity.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            maintaining the integrity of a building that has none inside.

            Especially those 3 dissenting votes? Funny, it never occurred to me that the court was a monolith of disintegrity.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They’ve not crossed the zero-line… yet.

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The Court is there to uphold the Constitution and to arbitrate the excesses of the Executive and Legislative branches.

            While fallible, like the rest of us, the Court has done a good job of reining in the most egregious excesses of the current executive, corrected older mistakes, updated older decisions in light of current circumstances and clarified meanings in the Constitution.

            Their decisions are not all what I in my infinite wisdom would have made, but I respect their exercise of their essential function in our system of government. I would characterize them in several ways, but none would be as lacking integrity.

            Happy Independence Day.

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes, but then you don’t take brib… er, gifts from the donor class.

          7. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            I agree the Court needs stricter guidelines/rules, but have seen no indications that any of them accepted anything pertaining to cases before them.

            Compare that to the Biden crime syndicate trading on Old Joe’s positions to extort multiple millions in actual bribes. Take umbrage at the mountain before straining at gnats.

          8. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The Court is there to uphold the Constitution and to arbitrate the excesses of the Executive and Legislative branches.

            While fallible, like the rest of us, the Court has done a good job of reining in the most egregious excesses of the current executive, corrected older mistakes, updated older decisions in light of current circumstances and clarified meanings in the Constitution.

            Their decisions are not all what I in my infinite wisdom would have made, but I respect their exercise of their essential function in our system of government. I would characterize them in several ways, but none would be as lacking integrity.

            Happy Independence Day.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          So the equal protection of laws is now cruelty. Got it.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “The Governor should ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the matter and act on that opinion.”

        Sure sounds like a call to discriminate to me…

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          It is the process in Virginia’s constitution.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process ”

Leave a Reply

Read More