Great post. In my lifetime we've gone from justifying discrimination under color of law to justifying reverse discrimination under law of color. Those wedded to reverse discrimination are not about to fold their tent, the Supreme Court be damned. John Roberts gave them a very wide opening when he said minority applicants could claim in their applications they were adversely affected by their race, and I'm sure they're surging through that opening. The only way to stop the surge is to impose penalties, and the only way to make that happen is to reelect Trump. Jim Dueholm
Nicely argued. Well taken analogy to the "resistance" of southern institutions during the 60s to Federal desegregation. The law of the land is selectively ignored by both sides when it suits an ideological agenda. I'm a Yale alum and have withheld all contributions for years as the institution continues its arrogant insistence on the righteousness of wokery.
Great post. In my lifetime we've gone from justifying discrimination under color of law to justifying reverse discrimination under law of color. Those wedded to reverse discrimination are not about to fold their tent, the Supreme Court be damned. John Roberts gave them a very wide opening when he said minority applicants could claim in their applications they were adversely affected by their race, and I'm sure they're surging through that opening. The only way to stop the surge is to impose penalties, and the only way to make that happen is to reelect Trump. Jim Dueholm
Nicely argued. Well taken analogy to the "resistance" of southern institutions during the 60s to Federal desegregation. The law of the land is selectively ignored by both sides when it suits an ideological agenda. I'm a Yale alum and have withheld all contributions for years as the institution continues its arrogant insistence on the righteousness of wokery.