I think you may be reading a great deal into my comment that I neither wrote nor intended. I do not deny the United States has an atrocious history of slavery, racism, and discrimination. What I was talking about is the type of diversity sought by university administrators. My personal belief is that intellectual diversity is as least as important, if not more important for a university than racial and ethnic diversity. Yes, I agree that Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was correctly decided. But that is because I believe it is correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment and theCivil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race if you receive federal funding. There is no question that if you discriminate in favor of a member of a racial or ethnic group, you are discriminating against people who are not members of that group. For more than 50 years universities got away with discriminating on the basis of race. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote a few years ago, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Applicants that have overcome racial discrimination or other adversity are free to write about that in application essays. Students should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of their ethnic groups.
I find it interesting that you chose to use your reply to my comment to make a racist attack on Justice Thomas for having the temerity to marry a white woman. I'll be honest, I have a really negative opinion of Ginny Thomas. But my opinion has nothing to do with miscegenation and everything to do with her support for Trump's stolen election narrative. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ginny Thomas that have nothing to do with her marriage to a Black man. What does it say about a person that decides to attack her for an interracial marriage? It says to me that person is a racist. If you disagree, I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong.
What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
I think you may be reading a great deal into my comment that I neither wrote nor intended. I do not deny the United States has an atrocious history of slavery, racism, and discrimination. What I was talking about is the type of diversity sought by university administrators. My personal belief is that intellectual diversity is as least as important, if not more important for a university than racial and ethnic diversity. Yes, I agree that Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was correctly decided. But that is because I believe it is correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment and theCivil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race if you receive federal funding. There is no question that if you discriminate in favor of a member of a racial or ethnic group, you are discriminating against people who are not members of that group. For more than 50 years universities got away with discriminating on the basis of race. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote a few years ago, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Applicants that have overcome racial discrimination or other adversity are free to write about that in application essays. Students should be judged as individuals, not as representatives of their ethnic groups.
I find it interesting that you chose to use your reply to my comment to make a racist attack on Justice Thomas for having the temerity to marry a white woman. I'll be honest, I have a really negative opinion of Ginny Thomas. But my opinion has nothing to do with miscegenation and everything to do with her support for Trump's stolen election narrative. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ginny Thomas that have nothing to do with her marriage to a Black man. What does it say about a person that decides to attack her for an interracial marriage? It says to me that person is a racist. If you disagree, I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong.
What does it say that conspicuous by its absence in rulings that Uncle Clarence would reconsider is Loving vs. Virginia establishing the right to interracial marriage.
Is that conspicuous? Despite his explanation of it in hist dissent in Obergfell? (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/14-556.pdf).
Of course, it doesn't make a difference to you what Clarence Thomas actually thinks. It's what *he is* that matters. (You know...like ALL THOSE people.)
What Uncle Clarence thinks is that the whole fucking world revolves around Uncle Clarence.