Connect with us

In Focus

Race Based College Admissions Should Not Be Used Says Amicus Brief to Scotus

Published

on

Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper

Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper

*Project 21, a leader in the promotion of black conservative public policy opinion and activism, has joined a new legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing racial preferences in school admissions.

Project 21 joined an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) legal brief written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, American Civil Rights Institute and National Association of Scholars in the case of Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

This is the second time the Fisher case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case, Abigail Fisher, who is white, claimed that race preferences prevented her acceptance at the University of Texas at Austin in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant.

In 2013 the Court ruled 7-1 that race-conscious admissions policies must be narrowly tailored in order to be constitutional, and sent the case back to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard. The Supreme Court justices told the 5th Circuit to retry the case under standards of “strict scrutiny.”

The lower court sided with the University of Texas at Austin again. In July 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for a rehearing to determine if the 5th Circuit properly followed the Supreme Court’s instructions.

A date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court has not been announced. A decision is expected by June 2016.

“The Supreme Court’s earlier rulings make it clear that quotas and other kinds of broad-based racial preferences are impermissible,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and was a leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives.

“One would think that, in 2015, no school would think it necessary to rely on a racial test to balance out its student body.

In this case alone, however, the Court has given every opportunity for the lower court and the University of Texas itself to reassess its race-based admissions policy. Yet it appears only direct intervention by the Court will now be sufficient. The days for race-based social engineering are numbered.”

Project 21’s Cooper is a University of Texas at Austin graduate.

Fisher and her supporters, including Project 21, asked the Court to determine if the lower court followed the orders of the justices to thoroughly and thoughtfully re-examine if the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race preferences for the sake of campus diversity were permissible, the University of Texas at Austin immediately instituted the race-conscious admissions policy challenged in the Fisher case.

It was instituted despite other schools’ use of additional considerations to achieve their own diversity goals, factoring in things such as parental income, parental educational histories, general family history and even a Texas policy that guaranteed state-run university enrollment for students in the top percentages of their high school graduating classes.

The Project 21 brief notes: Washington, DC – There is no evidence that the University considered many of these race-neutral options, nor has it documented why these options would fail to produce a critical mass of underrepresented students and the educational benefits a diverse student body provides.

The brief also argues that “the University has failed to prove that its race-conscious program is narrowly tailored” to benefit alleged diversity goals because the assertion is not proven, the university has not seemed to weigh the costs and benefits of a race-conscious admissions policy nor has it proved it pursued all available alternatives to a race-conscious policy.

Furthermore, the brief explained this problem is not limited to the University of Texas at Austin:

There is no evidence that universities have weighed the undeniable costs of racial preferences against the benefits that purportedly result from classifying individuals on the basis of race.

And there is no evidence that universities have given serious thought to whether these benefits can be achieved through race-neutral means. This demonstrates that universities nationwide continue to flout the Court’s limits on the use of race in admissions decisions.

Because the situation is not unique, Project 21 and the other organizations on the PLF-written brief noted the Court must definitively address the issue of the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies:

This Court’s most recent decision in Fisher – emphasizing the need to exhaust race-neutral measures before turning to race-based classifications – has not changed the behavior at our nation’s public universities…

[P]ublic institutions are not considering the costs attendant to racial preferences, and whether those costs outweigh the purported benefits.

“Over a century ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan said ‘Our Constitution is color blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ The justices who underwhelmed almost everyone by sending the Fisher case back to the 5th Circuit in 2013 now have another chance to reaffirm Constitutional principle,” said Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks, the former executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s Greater Los Angeles chapter.

“Justice Clarence Thomas got it right on Fisher when he wrote ‘I would… hold that a state’s use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.’ And, as my friend Richard Sander — a UCLA law professor and expert on social and economic equality — has patiently explained, race preferences hurt the supposed beneficiaries.

These students, he wrote in The Atlantic, ‘fall behind from the start and become increasingly lost as the professor and her classmates race ahead… the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.'”

The brief additionally cites “academic mismatch” as a perilous byproduct of poorly-crafted race-conscious admissions policies, noting that “racial preferences… cause acute harm to those who receive them.”

By placing minority students in schools above their academic aptitude so that the institution can achieve its diversity goals, the brief noted “[t]he result is a significant gap in academic credentials between minority and nonminority students at all levels.” This may lead to changed majors, dashed hopes and – worst of all – disparate dropout rates among minority students.

Project 21’s Hicks added: “The broader debate surrounding ‘affirmative action’ has changed since the Court last ruled on this case. This time, they are thankfully afforded a second chance to end the divisive practice of race preferences.”

In sum, the Project 21 brief points out to the justices that:

When an educational institution discriminates on the basis of race, narrow tailoring requires that it prove independently how racial preferences are the least harmful means to secure the educational benefits of diversity… The Court can ensure that students are treated equally under the law by holding that the University’s decision fails to satisfy the narrow tailoring requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.

Additional information about this case and the amicus brief just filed can be found in a blog post by the author of the brief, attorney Joshua Thompson, at the Pacific Legal Foundation website here

Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events and politics in tens of thousands of instances since its founding in 1992. Most recently, this has included Fox News Channel programs such as “Special Report with Bret Baier,” the “O’Reilly Factor,” “Fox and Friends” and “The Kelly File” as well as CNN’s “The Situation Room,” HLN’s “Dr. Drew,” Blaze TV, America One News Network, TVOne, RT and Newsmax TV.

On radio and in print, Project 21 members have appeared on or been cited by the Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thom Hartmann, the Progressive Radio Network, EurWeb, Orlando Sentinel, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations that include WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati.

Project 21 has participated in many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are available for media comment on this case as well as the overall issue of race preferences in what some call a “post-racial” contemporary America.

A leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

source:
Judy Kent
[email protected]

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

Scotch vs Whisky: What’s the Difference?

Published

on

Uisge beatha

Uisge beatha

*Uisge beatha is one of the world’s most expensive liquids, but what is it?

The term uisge beatha is Scottish Gaelic for the “water of life,” a distilled spirit we know as whiskey.

From ancient Gaelic on, there’s a whole list of strange terms associated with the production of this incredible spirit. These terms aren’t just slang: the differences between them are often dictated by law. For example, what’s the difference between scotch vs whisky?

Are you looking for a quick primer on whisky terminology? We’ll take you through the origins and meanings of the most essential labels in the wide world of whisky.

Let’s Start Here: Whiskey and Whisky

What’s on your shelf? Is it whiskey, or is it whisky?

The answer depends not on the product or the blend or even the grain used. It’s all about where it’s made.

Whiskey is a distilled alcoholic spirit that’s made in places like Ireland, the United States, Canada, Japan, and lately, even further afield. The liquid in your bottle comes from a fermented mash of grain, which can include corn, rye, barley, or other grains. Your bottle of whiskey may be aged in oak, bourbon, red wine, sherry, or even port barrels for almost any length of time. Though, some rules do apply, depending on the product’s origin.

When you order a whiskey, the liquid that winds up in your glass could be the product of one of any number of factors.

Now, let’s turn our attention to whisky without the ‘e’.

Whisky is a distilled spirit made only in Scotland. Its essence is the same as whiskey: it’s a spirit distilled from a fermented mash of grain. But when we talk about whisky, we’re talking about a long list of rules – some of them enshrined into law.

whisky

What You Need to Know About Whisky

Whisky without the ‘e’ can only be distilled and aged in Scotland. Once you cross the border into England, it is no longer a whisky. Even if it’s distilled in Scotland and aged elsewhere, it loses its status.

The rules on this are as strict as they are old. UK law defined Scotch Whisky in writing in 1909, and it’s standing has recognition in European law today.

The most recent comprehensive law governing the distillation of whisky is the Scotch Whisky Act 1988 and the associated orders. By law, a whisky must:

  • Be produced in a distillery in Scotland
  • Be the product of water and malted barley (cereals like wheat and rye can be added)

The law also stipulates that the malted barley must:

  • Be processed at that distillery
  • Converted into fermentable form through endogenous enzyme systems
  • Fermented on through yeast

Additionally, whisky must be first distilled to strength by volume under 94.8%. When ready for maturation, it can only sit in oak casks in Scottish warehouses.

Finally, a whisky isn’t a whisky unless it’s matured for at least three years. But you’re unlikely to find whisky on the shelves under five or even eight years old. Your final product must also be at least 40% strength by volume.

Scotch vs Whisky: Which Is It?

Scotch whisky by-and-large refers to the individual whiskies made in Scotland. You can say scotch or you can say whisky. You can even refer to it as scotch whisky. All three terms refer to the same product governed by the same rules.

Effectively, the difference between scotch vs. whisky is almost nothing. It’s a matter of semantics if anything.

Let’s Talk About the Different Types of Whiskys

Scotch and whisky may be the same drink, but no two batches – nay, no two distillers – are exactly the same.

Once you get into Scotch, you can break it down into several categories, including by grain, malt, and region. Though, they will all follow the rules as laid down in the Scotch Whisky Act 1988.

Within whisky, there are three main types: single malt, single grain, and blended.

whisky-on-the-rocks-62527202

What is Single Malt Scotch?

Single malt whisky is a Scotch made only from malted barley and water in on distillery. Because of the constraints on distilling, there are few operational single malt distilleries in Scotland. The majority are in the Spey valley (known as Speyside), nestled between the Moray coast and the Cairngorm mountains.

Traditionalists consider single malt to be the superior whisky, and the price and scarcity reflect this belief. A single malt scotch can set you back a pretty penny, but the distillation process means they’re more flavorful than its cousin, the single grain scotch.

What is Single Grain Scotch?

Single grain whisky is a scotch made from a base of malted barley with additional grains and water. Like single malt scotch, a single grain still needs to be produced and matured at the same distillery.

There are are also distillation differences compare to single malts. A single malt is distilled in a pot still, but pot stills aren’t suitable for producing huge batches. They’re used to focus on flavor.

A single grain whisky is produced through column stills, which allow products to work on a greater scale.

What is Blended Whisky?

Then, there is the blended whisky, like the Johnnie Walker whiskey collection. Blended whiskies are a “blend” of several different whiskies in one bottle. These aren’t unique to scotch whiskies, but scotch blended whisky will always be 100% whisky. American whiskeys, however, have different rules: an American blended whisky might only have 20% whiskey and the rest might be a mix of bourbon, whiskey, and scotch whisky.

In the past, most blended whiskys are a recipe featuring single grain batches rather than the more laborious single malt. However, that changed in 2009. Today’s blended scotch whisky blends must contain a combination of at least one single malt and one ore more single grain whiskies.

Do the whiskies in each blend need to come from the same distillery? No, the rule only applies to single malt or single grains bottled individually. You’ll find a mix of malts from distilleries across Scotland in each blender’s recipe.

You’re on Your Way to Being a Whisky Expert

Did you know the difference between scotch vs. whisky? Now, you know that there is no difference: they both reflect the same ancient, beautiful, and highly-regulated spirit produced only in Scotland.

Are you looking for more to read? Check out our Entertainment archive for more great content.

Continue Reading

Apple News

A ‘Giddy’ Danny Trejo Wants to Tell You About A New & Unique ED Treatment – WATCH!

Published

on

*Gentlemen (and ladies), as a pubic, er, public service 🙂 we thought we’d bring you some real news you – or “somebody you know” – can use if erectile dysfunction is an issue.

In fact, we’re downright giddy about what we’ve learned in a new video from actor Danny Trejo, but you need to be honest about the situation ’cause anyone who’s had to deal with (him and/or her) knows it’s serious business

TMZ caught up with the “Machete” man  Tuesday night (05-14-19) in Hollywood and put words to him about Giddy, the new device/invention that helps men get it up and stay up. So yes, Trejo is the pitchman (a beautiful sista & doctor/inventor) for the new, wearable erectile dysfunction  product.

Check out the clip … Danny went all gaga about his new employer, and explains how he got involved. He tells it like it is when he says damn near every male who’s still vertical has horizontal problems” every now and or in some case, a LOT. If they don’t admit it, they are straight-up LYING!!!

Dammit, the truth HURTS, but according to Taco Man Trejo, Giddy WORKS and will solve that problem.

Alrighty then! Sign ME up. I want to be GIDDY as hell. 🙂 🙂

STEVE HARVEY SPEAKS ON HIS ‘NEXT CHAPTER’ FOLLOWING END OF TALK SHOW AND ‘LITTLE BIG SHOTS’

As far as the company is concerned, it’s in the early stages of raising money to make the product but as TMZ notes, “liars all over the world can remain discreet and pre-order now. In fact, the company’s betting it’ll get the backing it needs cause it’s already put out a hilarious commercial … starring their new penis pitch guy, of course.”

By the way, the ad not only features Tejo,  but some other stars you probably wouldn’t guess would appear to push a product like this … from a model and world class athlete to a “Housewife.”

And props to the light-skinned sista in the yellow dress who reminds us a tall LaLa Anthony. She is FANTASTIC and compliments Trejo very, very well.

 

Continue Reading

Apple News

Trayvon Martin’s Life & Legacy Honored in Black Thought’s ‘Rest in Power’

Published

on

unnamed (11)

*Grammy® Award-winning rapper, Tariq “Black Thought” Trotter, lead MC of the hip-hop band The Roots, has recorded an original composition, “Rest In Power,” that will air as part of a new six-part original documentary series, “Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story.

The series, produced by the Peabody Award-winning team behind last year’s critically acclaimed series “TIME: The Kalief Browder Story,” Shawn Carter and The Cinemart, will premiere Monday, July 30 at 10 PM, ET/PT.

Trotter’s powerful original musical tribute pays homage to the life and legacy of Trayvon Martin, whose death became the catalyst for the Black Lives Matter movement. Filmed in Gotham Hall, footage from the original documentary series becomes larger than life as it is projected behind Tarik while he performs his original piece for the music video directed by Rohan Blair-Mangat.

The full music video can be viewed on Paramount Network’s YouTube Channel and ParamountNetwork.com. With the song’s commanding lyrics and the video’s powerful imagery, Trotter and Paramount collectively agreed that the project deserved a bigger audience. On Monday July 23rd, 2018 both the video and track will be available on all digital streaming platforms with 100% of the proceeds going to The Trayvon Martin Foundation.

READ THIS/50 CENT: FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. WAS THE CAUSE OF 2014 MURDER-SUICIDE

trayvon martin, rest in power

Black Thought Records “Rest in Power” to Honor Life & Legacy of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin was an unarmed 17-year old African American high school student shot and killed by a neighborhood watch member in the Sanford, Florida community on February 26, 2012 where he was visiting a friend with his father. George Zimmerman was acquitted of a second-degree murder charge utilizing Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, claiming he shot Martin in self-defense.

The fatal encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and the subsequent trial polarized the nation, sparking outrage and protests and shined an unforgiving light on issues including race, politics, power, money and, gun control.

Interviews combined with home videos, family photos, and news footage will take viewers beyond the news cycle and offer an intimate look at the story of a young life tragically cut short and that spurred a movement giving rise to a rallying cry that still resonates today, #BlackLivesMatter.

“Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story” also addresses the significant cultural and societal issues surrounding the tragedy as well as an in-depth examination into the investigation, trial, and the not-guilty verdict.

“Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story” is produced for Paramount Network by Shawn Carter and The Cinemart. Executive Producers are Shawn Carter, Mike Gasparro, Jenner Furst, Julia Willoughby Nason, Nick Sandow, David C. Glasser, Chachi Senior, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. Furst and Nason are co-directors on the project.

 

 

 

 

 

source:
Carleen Donovan
[email protected]

Chloe Snyder
[email protected]

Continue Reading

TV Calendar: Coming to Small Screens

Trending