Welcome to the circus—or maybe I should say sideshow—in the wake of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College and the related Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v University of North Carolina et al. What else would you call it when you have carnival barkers in the form of POTUS and certain members of SCOTUS, all trying to stir the masses and discredit the Court for not falling into lockstep with the Left?

In case you missed it, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that “the use of race in college admissions violates the Constitution.” Needless to say, the cries of “FOUL!” sounded fast and furious. Among those cries is the WSJ bemoaning the fact this will make it more difficult for colleges and universities to “maintain racial diversity in their classes.”

Instead of looking at the issues with that statement, especially in light of Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement within the majority decision that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” let’s take a hard look at the double-standard and, to be honest, hypocrisy in the dissenting opinions by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Apparently, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson operates under the illusion that the majority felt the decision would bring “a quicker end to racism”. From her dissenting opinion:

The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain.

Hmm, there are all manners of wrongness with that one statement, but let’s just look at the obvious. How many qualified young men and women who do not qualify as “people of color” have been denied entry into their college of choice in favor of someone who might not be as qualified simply because of the color of the other applicant’s skin? How does KBJ think those people feel? Does she think they simply smile and nod and say “That’s cool. I get skipped over for someone less qualified but that’s all right because my white guilt over things that happened in the past means I need to step aside”?

She also writes in her dissent:

Our country has never been colorblind. Given the lengthy history of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America, to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considers whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally advantaged its applicants fails to acknowledge the well-documented “intergenerational transmission of inequality” that still plagues our citizenry.

I don’t know whether to shake my head in dismay over the failure of logic in that comment or to fear for the state of our nation if this line of thought continues. Probably both because both apply here. Whether the Justice realizes it or not, she is advocating prejudice based on skin color, something she alleges to be against. The problem is, she is only against it if the “victim” is of a certain genetic background. To hell with the rest of the country.

Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Winsome Sears, cut right to the heart of the issue with Jackson’s opinion during an interview with Martha MacCallum:

Well, what you have is the justice who was chosen because she’s black and because she’s a woman. . . You know, that’s what we’re understanding now, what a woman is. And Martha, while we’re playing these stupid games, I’m saying that education and the lack of it in America is risen to a national crisis. China is not playing these stupid games. China is interested in total world domination, and so is Russia and the rest of them. That’s what we have to be concerned about. Our children are not learning. In fact, when they do graduate from high school and decide to go on to college, Martha, more than 60% of them, according to the statistics, need remedial education that very first year. So, you know how the president is talking about getting rid of student loans? Well, then the children are having to stay one extra year in college based on loans that they have taken for work that they should have completed when they were in high school. So, let’s cut that and let’s get to what the remedies are, and I’m pulling for school choice. School choice now. Our children are in need.

All I can say is “Amen!” and “thank you”.

This is not Sears’ first time addressing the issue. She, along with North Carolina’s lieutenant governor, Mark Robinson, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the challenge to Harvard’s and UNC’s affirmative action policy.

Remember also, Biden promised to appoint a “black woman” to SCOTUS.

While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity – and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.

When did the sex of a candidate and the color of their skin become more important than how well a person understood the law and could then apply that understanding to the issues to be presented before the court?

Lest she feel left out, we can’t forget Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion either. She wrote:

The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.

I’d admit she makes a point except that’s not really what the decision did. Race can still be considered. . .IF the applicant decides to use their personal experiences as part of the application process. As Justice Roberts wrote:

[N]othing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

Hmm. . . so, what’s the difference?

Very simply put, it now becomes the choice of the applicant whether or not to bring race, discrimination and its impact on his or her life into the process. It gives the college or university the chance to weigh the impact of the applicant’s life—along with their academic background and other factors—on their qualifications to enroll at the university.

But, and this may be where the dissenters have a problem, it also means anyone who has faced discrimination or prejudice in his or her life can do the same thing. It will no longer be limited to the color of the applicant’s skin and what box they check on the application form.

Our own Nina Bookout also pointed out how there are those in the Democratic Party who believe racism is necessary. Even though that flies in the face of law, precedent and the Constitution, they don’t care. It’s what they want and, damn it, what they will fight for.

As I read and listen to the howls of discontent over the decision, I am reminded of something written by Thomas Sowell. (C’mon, you knew I’d find a way to bring him into the discussion, didn’t you?) In Black Rednecks & White Liberals, he writes the following, that could apply equally to the dissenting justices as it does to so many white liberals:

Blaming others for anything in which blacks lag has become standard operating procedure among white liberals (and liberals in general—ASG). If black do not pass bar exams or medical board tests as often as whites or Asians, then that shows that something is wrong with those tests. . .

It is important to remember a point Lt. Gov. Sears made. KBJ is a black woman who was nominated for her position on the Court not because she was the most qualified but because she was both black and female. Her qualifications came after. As Lt. Gov. Sears said, this approach has permeated our schools and businesses. . .thanks to liberal politicians who seem to have no problem with diluting the intellectual pool in order to maintain “equality”. No, I’m sorry, “equity”.

Then they wonder why we are falling behind in so many areas worldwide.

This decision was not a step backwards but a step to the side. Race can still be considered—well, it’s impact on the the applicant—if the applicant wants to make it so. All the decision does is make it no longer an automatic consideration. I’d say that’s a step forward. Wouldn’t you?

Welcome, Hotair readers!

Featured Image by Mark Thomas from Pixabay in accordance with the site’s licensing.