by Donna Martinez
Former Senior Writer and Editor, John Locke Foundation
One of my favorite constitutional law experts is George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley. He calls balls and strikes, no matter who’s at the plate. I like that. Take a look at Professor Turley’s take on the UNC-Chapel Hill case, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in conjunction with a Harvard case. The justices will scrutinize how Harvard and UNC-CH use race as a factor in admissions. (emphasis is mine)
In the North Carolina case, the challengers maintain that the data shows that an Asian American male in-state applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission to UNC would have a 67 percent chance if he were Hispanic and a 90 percent chance if he were an African American. For an Asian American male from out of state with a 25 percent chance of admission, the odds of admissions for an African American with the same scores would be 99 percent, according to their briefs.
If the court accepts this claimed disparity, it could use the case to show that the diversity rationale has been little more than a rationalization for racial discrimination.
In an interview with Locke’s Mitch Kokai, Kenny Xu of Color Us United reacted to news that the high court will hear the Harvard and UNC-CH cases. He wants to see the end of racial discrimination.