In rare but refreshing bipartisan good news out of Congress, Senator Thom Tillis (R – North Carolina…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Members of Congress Stand Up for Property Rights

In rare but refreshing bipartisan good news out of Congress, Senator Thom Tillis (R – North Carolina) and Representatives Ben Cline (R - Virginia), Theodore Deutch (D - Florida), Martha Roby (R - Alabama) and Harley Rouda (D – California) have just taken a firm stand protecting property rights – copyrights specifically – and merit our praise.

As we’ve long highlighted, property rights constitute a central pillar of “American Exceptionalism,” and that includes intellectual property (IP) rights – copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets.   Our Founding Fathers considered IP so important that they deliberately and explicitly singled it out for protection in the text of the Constitution.  As a direct result, we’ve become the most innovative and prosperous nation…[more]

December 06, 2019 • 02:15 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional, Unpopular and Based Upon a False Pretense of "Diversity" Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, August 24 2017
According to universities and their corporate and government apologists, official discrimination is required to achieve a critical mass of diversity of perspective. It's impossible to take that rationalization seriously, however, when colleges remain one of the most non-diverse institutions in American society.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  

Although just ten years old, the words of Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 have already ascended into the pantheon of expressions of America's elusive ideal of a colorblind society offering equal justice under the law. 

The Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document, deliberately elevated that ideal in its opening words that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."  Although its author Thomas Jefferson imperfectly fulfilled that ideal, as all human beings do, it nevertheless created the foundational principle on which America grew to become the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history. 

Before a century had passed, more Americans sacrificed themselves for that ideal in the Civil War than in any other war in our history, including World War II. 

And in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, that ideal finally obtained legal force when enshrined into the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Government was thenceforth prohibited from discriminating among its citizens on the basis of race. 

A century later, that same prohibition was extended to private enterprises via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Yet state-sanctioned racial discrimination persists 53 years later, despite over two centuries of toil to eradicate it. 

According to a lawsuit filed by Asian-American organizations against some of the nation's most prestigious universities, Asian-Americans must score 140 points higher on their SAT exam than white admission applicants, 270 points higher than Latino applicants and 450 points higher than African-American applicants. 

Because state-sponsored racial discrimination so violates our stated principle of a colorblind society, courts have imposed strict standards upon its practice.  Over four decades of halting precedent, the Supreme Court has allowed universities to discriminate in favor of applicants on the basis of race and ethnicity in pursuit of the ostensible goal of "diversity." 

According to universities and their corporate and government apologists, official discrimination is required to achieve a critical mass of diversity of perspective. 

It's impossible to take that rationalization seriously, however, when colleges remain one of the most non-diverse institutions in American society. 

As just one example, last year Econ Journal Watch examined voter registration records for faculty at forty leading American universities.  Among 7,243 professors surveyed, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a 12-to-1 ratio, 3,623 to 314. 

Accordingly, universities' "diversity" pretense is self-evidently false. 

Moreover, it's not as if affirmative action apologists were disregarding the colorblind ideal and legal mandate in the name of public popularity.  According to Gallup, Americans oppose affirmative action in the name of "diversity" by nearly 3-to-1: 

Americans continue to believe colleges should admit applicants based solely on merit (70%), rather than taking into account applicants' race and ethnicity in order to promote diversity (26%).  These findings suggest Americans would disagree with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, in which the Court essentially ruled that colleges can continue to consider race as a factor in their admissions decisions to increase diversity on their college campuses. 

Moreover, that differential has actually increased by 2 points since the same question was surveyed in 2003 and 2013.  Even African-Americans favor admission based solely on merit rather than consideration of race by a 50% to 44% margin, while the disparity among Latinos stands at 61% to 26%. 

Thus, racial discrimination in the name of "diversity" doesn't just contravene constitutional text and two centuries of struggle toward a colorblind society, it also remains widely unpopular.  It merely serves the interest of those stubbornly committed to identity politics in America. 

Fortunately, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions is preparing to begin "investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions," according to The New York Times.  It can't come a moment too soon. 

Armies of university administrators, government bureaucrats, lawyers and social activists depend upon perpetuating the practice for their livelihoods, fanning the flames of grievance on demonstrably false logic. 

But their interest should not be allowed to prevail over constitutional mandate and popular will any longer. 

Question of the Week   
Where is the USS Arizona Memorial located?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Donald Trump. After all, Alexander Hamilton that impeachment would often occur in an environment of 'agitated passions.' Yet I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on…[more]
 
 
—Jonathan Turley, The George Washington University Law School Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, Legal Commentator, Legal Scholar, Writer, and Legal Analyst
— Jonathan Turley, The George Washington University Law School Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, Legal Commentator, Legal Scholar, Writer, and Legal Analyst
 
Liberty Poll   

Should House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff be investigated for subpoenaing and publishing call log records (with no details or context) of another member of congress, the president's attorney, a journalist and others?