"All men are created equal" vs. DEI
"All men are created equal." Thus wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Why is this important? Since all men are created equal, institutions should not treat one people group as more or less important than another.
DEI content, where the goal is the circular "needing diversity in the workplace just because of a DEI ideal" that has no sense of achievement, is foreign to this constitutional concept.
Surprisingly, even the University of Berkeley, California's law school was still using race-based essay metrics to choose which students would be admitted. The Department of Justice revealed that these strange admissions policies were purposely limiting white and Asian students' admission rates, as of September 10.
As of September 24, Monmouth University in New Jersey provides "social justice advocacy" in a counseling setting and a "Social Justice Academy" for K-12 teaching programs, despite "white privilege" and similar DEI concepts being foreign to Jefferson's vision where all people are constitutionally and morally equal.
Remember that according to D.A. Carson's The Intolerance of Tolerance, the latest meaning of tolerance implies that no one should disagree with anything, except for things that are considered non-consensual, and that some people, like those running the above social justice programs, assume "tolerance" is the highest good.
DEI and a state constitution
In September 2023, Alabama had its constitutional right taken away by the Supreme Court, because the Court felt that the state was making elections harder for black people. According to a map used in the CNN article, most of the congressional districts in Alabama made black people appear to be “the minority,” and are purposely “made to dilute their voting power." There was one mostly-black district, but the Supreme Court forced Alabama to redraw its map and add another.
To Alabama, this was a sad reminder of affirmative action. The Supreme Court did reverse a ruling allowing colleges to use affirmative action in admissions, and “race-based redistricting” was no different. Affirmative action is just as unconstitutional as taking away someone’s authority to design a map as they choose, and the Supreme Court reassured Alabama that no affirmative action was intended.
“Unlike affirmative action in the admissions programs the Supreme Court analyzed in [this year’s affirmative action case], which was expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies, the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race."
The Supreme Court further clarified, “The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for black voters” to quell any further argument between them and the state of Alabama.
The rhetoric between the affirmative action party line — “expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies” — and “the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race” is very similar.
Moral of the story
The mission in each statement is ostensibly to improve “racial balance” between groups attaining university admissions. The problem is that each objective has a hidden cost. White and Asian students with better test scores got the short end of the stick compared to black students with lower grades during the era of affirmative action, and some universities are still using those DEI actions now.
Recommended: Universities Are Still Obsessed With DEI. Trump Needs to Cut Them Off Entirely. – PJ Media