Inequality Before the Law Is Now the New Constitutional Rule
US District Judge Allison Burroughs Ruled in Favor of Inequality Before the Law because It Benefits the “traditionally disadvantaged.” What more proof do you need that the US Constitution has been overturned?
What despicable CNN does not say is that “boosting the chances of traditionally disadvantaged applicants and enhancing diversity on campus” comes at the expense of discriminating against those who are designated on a racial basis not to be “traditionally disadvantaged.” In other words, the racial discrimination Harvard commits violates the 14th amendment requiring “equality before the law.”
Note that the judge is female. Women have also benefitted from discrimination against white men in university admissions, hiring, and promotions.
Federal judge upholds Harvard’s admissions process in affirmative action case
Updated 3:47 PM ET, Tue October 1, 2019
(CNN) — A US district judge in Boston has upheld  Harvard’s admissions process following a challenge from a group representing Asian American applicants who believe the school discriminated against them.
Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Tuesday that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she will not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”
In her 130-page opinion, Burroughs stressed that race-conscious admissions hold “an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding.”
The ruling in the closely watched case is likely to be appealed and culminate in a national showdown over affirmative action at the US Supreme Court.
The challengers had argued at trial that as the “personal” rating system disfavors Asian Americans, it favors blacks and Hispanics, who generally have lower standardized test scores compared with Asian Americans.
The storied Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus accepts only about 5% of its 40,000 applicants each year.
The Harvard ruling comes as college admissions practices are being scrutinized nationwide, including by federal prosecutors who allege that celebrity and other wealthy parents paid off coaches and education administrators to falsify student records to help them win acceptance at elite schools. The Harvard dispute centers on a wholly different but nonetheless longstanding point of contention: how institutions use students’ race to boost the chances of traditionally disadvantaged applicants and enhance diversity on campus.
Affirmative action challenge
Edward Blum, a conservative lawyer who had engineered the challenge filed in 2014, said his group, Students for Fair Admissions, would appeal to decision for the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants,” Blum said in a statement.
Blum has long opposed racial policies that have primarily benefitted blacks and Hispanics. In the past, Blum had sought white students to challenge affirmative action. In 2016, such a case he engineered against affirmative action at the University of Texas at Austin lost narrowly at the Supreme Court.