All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2023 - Lionel Nation
01:10:39
The Supreme Court Will End Affirmative Action
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today.
And take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
This is one of the most fascinating subjects that drives people nuts.
It deals with race.
Race is the number one subject matter.
Especially anything that deals with what is perceived as unfair, inconsistent, preferential treatment based on race.
Not where being black is treated negatively, but where it is...
Treated positively.
I'm going to cut right to the chase.
I'm not going to nuance this.
This is the issue.
This is talk radio, even though this isn't radio, talk radio 101.
If you want the phones to light up, as we used to say, which is a funny phrase because there are just six lines, and if you can't get six lines in a huge area of six people in various counties, whatever, cannot Be interested enough to call.
You got a big problem.
So anyway, so lighting up means like six lines.
The issue deals with black and white.
That is the issue.
Not Asian, maybe gay, no, maybe transgender, but ultimately affirmative action.
Baki, 1978 I think.
And this idea where we have quotas, even though they're illegal, we have preferential treatment, even though that's not technically the case, and even though most people don't have any idea of what the actual court cases say, there is something so inherently wrong.
And it drives people crazy when we say that in order either to achieve equity, by the way, this is a term that we didn't really have before, but equity, diversity, and the like, it drives people nuts.
White people, mostly, non-black, non-people of color.
Let's just say it.
This is what people, maybe not in, let me rephrase it, I think across the board.
It's the number one topic.
People love this topic.
They absolutely love it.
And they may not say so, they may not think it, but believe me when I tell you, it's true.
Now, the Supreme Court at the end of June may probably gut or remove affirmative action from And I'm trying to be...
If I spent...
This is another rule.
Be as specific as possible, but don't get caught up in the specifics.
People don't care about the specifics.
They want to talk about their thing.
It doesn't matter.
Make sure you always talk about what people want to talk about, irrespective of the fact that the particular issue that you're discussing may not even deal with that fact.
So just as a prefatory note, we have two universities, North Carolina, I think, and Harvard, who are basically claiming that there's a group of people who are suing, saying that this race-conscious admission is wrong.
And they're going to slice and dice and nuance it and say, well, it's not really a quota.
It's a factor.
And here is the main, this is the main deal.
This is the issue.
The case that is before the court is a 2003 case, which they're going to have to decide whether to boot or what have you.
And it's Grutter, or Grutter, but it's two Ts, Grutter against Bollinger, 2003 case.
Here is the holding.
This is the official holding.
The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment if the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interests of promoting a diverse student body and if it uses a holistic process to evaluate each applicant as opposed to a quota system.
This is what Originalists hate.
This is what Nino Scalia hated.
This is the absolute...
This is what people just despise.
Because I don't even know what this means.
I don't know what this means.
I don't understand it.
And you can read the dissents and you can hear the stories.
But that is basically it.
Alright?
Now...
Let me really distill it down even more so.
Let me just take this beyond just school and universities and give you kind of an overview because I've been listening and reading and paying attention to this and I'm going to kind of give you just a broad brush.
I would never give this in a law school class or before court.
This is not a law school class.
This is not YouTube.
This is public.
This is like what we used to call talk radio, when there was talk radio, when it mattered.
Okay.
Liberals, conservatives.
I don't know what the conservatives stand for, but let's talk about the liberals.
The liberals believe, first and foremost, that the world benefits when there is diversity, When there is a heterogeneity of participants.
When you have diversity.
Many would say translation black or gay or something that is traditionally non-white, non-ordinary, non-heterosexual.
That's what one group says.
They say, you don't want diversity.
That's your code word.
That's the word you use to basically get a leg up or a foot in the door.
You don't want there to be equality.
It's diversity.
And we all know that.
We know what diversity means and we know what equity means.
This is what they're saying.
So when you're talking that, we know exactly what you're talking about.
You want specific openings for specific people in order to get a A certain group of people, a certain aspect, a certain proportion, irrespective of qualifications.
Qualifications mean nothing to you.
You don't care about qualification.
You want the end result.
That's what the conservatives say.
Liberals would say, years and years of institutional racism.
Years and years of the country trying its best to deal with a The notion of race and slavery and equality, there has to be a balance.
In one of the oral arguments, one of the...
I think it was a lawyer representing Harvard University who has somewhat of a different issue, but nonetheless, said to Chief Justice Roberts, if Harvard University wants to extend Special consideration to an oboe player,
somebody who's extremely exquisite in the oboe, and the Harvard Radcliffe classical team needs an oboist.
They should be able to extend the particular courtesy to this famed oboe player, to which Justice Roberts replied, we didn't fight the Civil War over oboe players.
Okay Now Now, question number one.
Point number one.
If you talk about...
He's going to do it right now.
Where is it?
Oh, yes.
He's going to talk about it.
This allows a lot of stuff that you might be surprised it allows.
You would really be surprised what it...
It says and doesn't say about a lot of stuff.
So the first issue is the Constitution.
What does the Constitution say about race-based, race-conscious, college admissions, professional school admissions, in state non-private settings?
That's number one.
What does the Constitution say?
What does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say?
Because now you have the federal court Reading and interpreting a federal statute.
And the issue was to make it very, very simple.
Is this impermissible discrimination?
That's all.
Is it impermissible discrimination?
And if you say it is, some will say, this is racism, that word doesn't mean anything.
And it's also interesting to say, and I want you to listen very carefully, and I say this, With all due respect, we have some of the smartest people here.
Look at the reaction.
No matter how carefully I've tried to frame this, people are saying, healthcare?
Is healthcare racist?
Nobody's talking about that.
Great question.
Nobody's talking about that, Mr. Flat Earth Man.
No one.
It has nothing to do with this.
Inapposite.
Irrelevant.
Is the NBA racist?
What?
It has nothing to do with this.
That's a talk radio topic.
What if I...
Are requirements that a pilot be able to see?
Are those ableist?
Nothing to do with this.
It has nothing to do with this.
Irrelevant.
It's fun.
It's interesting.
Doesn't apply to the argument.
Which is fine because this is talk radio.
This isn't a courtroom.
But just so that you realize this.
Here's one.
Is it racist?
Another question is racist.
Racism is not the issue.
Racist is not a word that we use anymore.
We don't even use this.
You understand this?
This is not the issue.
The question is simply this.
What level of determination, what level of consideration can you, and by the way, please like this, please subscribe to this channel.
We need the likes.
What level of consideration can you play to race?
Does race play any role whatsoever?
What does diversity of race play?
Membership mean?
Is that not important?
When do you see this?
What is the...
Now, there have been examples of cases in California in the 90s by proposition they removed affirmative action.
I was listening to an interview with somebody from Berkeley.
Black and minority admissions plummeted after affirmative action was done.
Meaning that when you went to straight, or as some people say, straight.
I love that.
When they went to straight, academic, GPA, SAT, blah, blah, blah.
It cratered.
But why?
Why?
Why is that?
And the issue is, if it did happen, that has nothing to do with the issue of, here I am, I'm trying to get the best people involved.
Do you understand that?
If I'm not, what role does that?
You're asking me to pick the best people?
No, I want diversity.
Diversity of the most talented, or just diverse.
Maybe diverse.
What if we have two people?
Exactly even.
You don't even know who they are.
You've got one spot, two final applicants.
3.9 GPA.
Same school.
Same everything.
Same extracurriculars.
Almost identical.
Mirror images.
And you say, well...
Let me just see.
Let's peel back.
I've got to pick one.
They're dead even.
Let's see.
Let's pull back the...
Oh!
And let's just say, white woman, black woman.
We'll factor out the female part of it, which one can say.
Is it unconstitutional to say, when you have exhausted everything and you have to flip a coin, that you might say, you know what?
I'm going to pick the black applicant because it's whatever.
Historically, we haven't seen this.
This isn't fair.
It's better for the student body to have diversity, a multiplicity of individuals.
What?
What's wrong with that?
Can you ever?
Can you ever take into account anything?
Forget race.
What if we said, we have this person here from the South.
All of our class are from the Northeast.
All of them are rich.
All of them, they went to private schools and boarding schools.
We have, make it easy, we have a white person from the South, came from an impoverished background, worked her or his, worked his butt off, as we say, just as Kavanaugh would say.
We're going to consider that.
All things being equal.
Is that okay?
Here's what people will say.
Well, Yeah, it's okay.
Why?
They won't tell you this because that's a white, poor person.
What nobody wants to really tell you is that people get very, very sick and tired of hearing about, especially now, when it is black.
Now, is it because they're racist?
You could argue that.
That is the issue.
But it's even more pernicious.
In the Harvard case, you have Asian students.
Asian.
It was a targeted, same thing we've seen here, a targeted, systematic, focused discrimination against, alleged, against Asian people.
And they would use code words.
They would use code words where they would say that the person did not exhibit I forget what it was.
It wasn't very social.
It did not participate as much as others.
Apparently, I did not realize this.
There were a series of code words or phrases that people had for Asians.
Aloof, I guess.
Now, what if somebody says, okay, here's what we do.
Here's what we do.
Forget any mention of race.
Forget any mention of race.
And this was brought up.
Don't put race down.
Don't put whatever.
But we have an essay.
In your essay, tell us why you're special.
Well, we're special because as a female black woman from the inner city, wait a minute, you can't do that.
But why not?
That's not...
What's wrong with that?
Well, that's...
No.
No.
Really?
So here's the issue.
And I'm going to try my best to see if I can explain this.
There's legislative, and then the issue is constitutional.
Constitutional has nothing to do with the two.
Is this an equal protection violation?
Are you treating racial equality...
Or are you destroying racial equality?
Let me ask you this.
Is it?
Is that what's happening?
This is one of the biggest stories.
This is it.
This, we had Bakke in 78. We have this one, this Bollinger case.
We've got all these others.
Now, number one, it would seem to me, the first thing you have to do is, what are you trying to do?
What are you trying to do?
What is a university?
What are you attending to do?
You expect federal monies, federal monies to help in tuition and all kinds of programs and ancillary benefits that you receive, and that's fine.
You're receiving all of these monies.
And by the way, Harvard has such an endowment, you could never charge another student again.
It's incomprehensible, the money they have.
Incomprehensible.
Anyway.
The question you have to ask is, what are you trying to do?
And if Harvard were to say, well, here's the thing.
By the way, years ago in the, I think in the 30s, 40s maybe, there was an anti-Semitic policy, especially Harvard Law School and Harvard.
It was, I mean, it was anti-Semitic.
Like, you cannot believe!
Okay, fine.
So you have to cover for that.
What's wrong with this?
We don't have any reference.
We don't have any application.
Any mention whatsoever of race.
Or you do not take race into consideration.
If we did, what if we said this starting now?
Starting now.
Let me ask you something.
Who has a problem with that?
No race.
Nothing.
Nothing.
No race.
No gender.
No age.
How about age?
Is age okay?
Is age a problem?
What if somebody, what if I, what if some guy who's almost 65 years old, I'm going to enroll in school?
I'm not going to live out the longevity of my tenure in the academics.
Is that okay?
I mean, there are things that have nothing to do with my ability.
What about my criminal record?
Well, that's different.
That goes to character.
Oh, really?
You see how we are stressing?
Well, what does that have to do with ability?
Well, it may or may not.
But the first rule is, what if we just eliminate everything?
There's just no race at all.
Nothing.
No race.
No ethnicity.
No Chinese.
No Asian.
Nothing.
You just go in and you show up and say, hey, look at this.
Wow!
Look at this.
The Harvard Law School of 20 or whatever.
There's no white people in this class.
Okay.
That's what you got?
All based on these criteria.
Okay, fine.
So be it.
I don't know about you, but I'm not an advocate of saying, well, we have to fix that, because I'm doing the very same thing I find problematic.
And I find it problematic, intellectually and practically, to force people, or to say, we're going to fix.
Generations and generations of absolute inequality by fixing and adjusting and calibrating acceptance so that we get more of this group in order to make up for years and years of isolation.
Even though, and here's the problem, and listen to me carefully.
There are studies, and the first thing you must understand, if somebody says there's a study, another person will say, well, that study has never been really determined to be foolproof.
I know the study you speak of, and that study is incorrect.
Whether it's climate change, whether it's crime statistics, there's always somebody who says, well, that's not, that study does not, that's been disputed.
But, it has been said that when you take a person, Who has not been made, who is not familiar with rigorous academics, rigorous writing skills, study habits, pressure, time allocation, competition with some serious, serious, serious students.
Maybe people from some schools that have been Behavior problems.
Think about Blackboard Jungle or anything on YouTube.
Look at some of these schools.
I'm sure they're the minority of the case.
Not all schools have people throwing things.
But if you took that particular person and said, okay, we're going to put you into the Columbia Medical School class.
We're going to do everything in our power.
How do you think they're going to do?
Number one, how will this affect their self-esteem when they're not able to compete?
And in order to correct that, do you lower the standards for this?
Do you lower the standards in order to accommodate?
You don't want to flung people out.
The answer is very simple.
You do everything in your power, everything in your power to make sure That you take every consideration to remove racism, sexism, transphobic, transgender, whatever-ism you want.
But in the meantime, if you want academics to be wanting, you cannot lower standards in the name of diversity.
And no matter what you call it, no matter what you call it, when you say, unless you just say, you know what, there are no standards, universities are just going to be...
Collection centers of the most historically needy.
The most historically bothered.
The most historically trounced.
This is what this is going to be.
Go to any college campus and look around you and you will see.
I'm not saying now, but the goal.
If they say that, fine.
However, we have this problem with the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection.
You're treating people differently because of race.
Yes, but it's a good reason for that.
It's a good reason for it.
Why is it a good reason to racially discriminate?
Well, we're not discriminating.
Diversity means so much to us.
What about the diversity in the NBA?
I brought it up.
There is no diversity in the NBA.
Well, that's different.
That's based upon what?
I would venture to say that there is not one person on the NBA today who is there merely because of race.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
Sports fans, sports teams, sports agents, coaches, team presidents have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything other than winning.
They don't care what it is.
There was a time when it was so stupid when Jackie Robinson had to break the color barrier because these idiots were so hell-bent.
On these lunatics, this racial, that they would turn down the greatest athletes just because of color?
That's how nuts it was.
Not anymore.
But now we're into a new situation.
And this is what people are saying.
They're saying this notion of two things.
Two things are happening.
When you talk about equity, When you talk about trying to correct injustice, when you're talking about diversity, equity, sustainability, whatever that means, what you're doing is you are completely and totally recalibrating success.
And you are also destroying the fundamental precepts of this.
Which might really be, in some people's minds, some people might say, I'm just using this as an example.
I want the least amount of qualified people because I want to destroy, I don't care how we get them, least qualified whites, least qualified blacks, I don't care.
I want to destroy the American education system.
There are some people who think like that.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Now you know, for example, there was this story, this was this, This was...
This week, the best thing happened.
Let me see.
We found out yesterday, one of the best things ever, Rachel Rollins is going to resign.
Rachel Rollins.
She lied.
This was...
Rachel Rollins.
And they're going to say, obviously, she's an African-American.
Just as an example, and this has nothing to do with this issue, but I'm just going to give you an idea.
Rachel Rollins, for a U.S. attorney to step down...
Think about what this means in terms of everything that we've seen so far.
In terms of the...
When you have Merrick Garland, who has done nothing.
Nothing.
When we live in a system where the Durham report basically says that the President of the United States had his own private, his own private police force, His own Stasi?
Do you know how bad...
Again, it's a different issue.
Rachel Rollins has to be to step down for the pressure?
I mean, this is...
You must hear what's going on.
Listen to her.
One of the reasons, one of the bases, one of the aspects of her inclusion was because it adds a diversity, an equity.
Now, this is not to say there are absolute teams, legions of great public servants, judges, jurists, U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, all over the country, of every color and shade of the rainbow you can imagine.
But this is where we are going now.
There is a move, more than ever, not to correct.
Listen to what I'm saying.
Listen to what I'm saying.
Please tell me you understand this.
There is a move now, not to correct historical injustice, but to guarantee an absolute dispersal, a percentage of certain identifiable racial, sex, gender, sexuality demographics.
To guarantee this.
Not to guarantee X amount of great people, but to say, we want this result.
We do not want to see 90% Asians at any time, even though that 90% represents the best students available.
I don't know if we still do the Scripps Howard spelling bee, but there was, and I don't know if it's even, but for whatever reason, there was a time when every single year Indian, Asian Indian students would win.
Every single year.
Why?
Because Asian Americans are better spellers or Asians?
No.
I don't know the why.
Why?
Remember the tiger mom?
Remember the Chinese?
Pushing, pushing, pushing academics.
Academics, certain ethnicities, certain cultures, certain ethics, certain responsibilities.
Oh man, they did not want to hear any of this.
Because what we do today is, and this is the problem, and this is not even a legal issue, this is me just telling you the truth.
Whenever you try to explain something, and if the explanation This is what many people believe.
Does not involve blaming white people for something.
We do not want to hear about this particular explanation.
Period.
Now, if you want to blame, if you want to discuss why is there racism in the country, how do you explain white nationalism, then you can have at it.
Please generalize away.
You will never, ever be called out.
Nobody will ever say to you, now listen, you can't say that.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Say whatever you want.
Now, let me stop for a second.
What would you do to fix things?
What would you wish to do to fix things?
And I recognize the fact, and I can see that most people, by the way, of the wonderful people who comment, have no interest whatsoever in sticking with a particular subject matter.
And I understand this.
I can't, there's no way to mandate this.
So I'm assuming, I'm assuming that you understand this, but choose not to use the limited amount of time that you have to type or to answer.
But the question is, question number one, has there been in this country histories, histories and history, a history of racial discrimination, Where black citizens, black Americans, let's just start with that, have suffered in ways that non-black Americans or that white Americans or majority Americans will never conceive of.
Do you think that is true?
Does anybody here not think that's true?
Do you think that is true?
Do you believe that to be true?
This is the most important point.
Because if you don't believe there's two, if you think there is no racism, there is no historical, institutional, anti-black reference, then all this is just a waste of time.
And this is just imaginary.
Because that's what people are saying.
They're talking about a deliberate attempt to level the playing field, to correct historical injustices.
And the first question is, do you think this has been the case?
Do you think black folks in this country, and some would say, Today.
Do you think that's true?
Number two, if you were not black, how do you know this?
How do you know this?
How does anybody know?
How do you know?
People say, once upon a time, but not anymore.
Somebody writes, Italians were hanged.
By the way, hanged, not hung, but they were hanged in New Orleans.
That's true.
We had signs in this country that said Irish need not apply.
I in no way think I have to explain anything involving anti-Semitism and by virtue of how it's been, I mean, ingrained in pre-biblical times.
Here is my question.
What does that have to do with my question about do you think black Americans have been subject to systematic, systemic racism?
Do you hear what people say?
Well, other people have.
See what happens?
This is like the family argument.
This is why people need critical thinking skills.
You have caught them and they don't like this.
So what they will do is they'll say, well listen, maybe then, but you don't understand.
That's an excuse.
And other people have done it too.
Look at those Chinese people.
They couldn't even speak English.
And there are other people coming in.
So don't give me this business that black people are the only ones.
I never said they were the only ones.
I'm saying, do you think that was a historical thing?
Well, maybe, but I know where you're going with that.
Where am I going with that?
Well, you're just trying, you know, you're a liberal.
This is why people do it.
Because we just get, this is why I love the subject.
Because nobody will even, nobody will even address it like they would anything.
But the question is, number one, has there been yes?
Number two, to what degree?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Do you think that when people today walk outside, when people walk out, do they feel, do they say, I feel like I'm living in a second class citizenry.
I'm in a second class status.
Nobody's arresting me.
Nobody's locking me up.
Nobody's pulling me over because I'm by.
But I can just tell when I'm walking into a place, people look at me.
Or, is that enough about them?
Do they think that maybe they have been, people saying this, they've been told, conditioned to believe this, and they do believe it by virtue of what they've said?
So that's the first question.
And this issue has nothing to do with it, but I have to ask this question.
How do I know?
How do I say, well, as a woman, well, I think women are doing much better today.
Really?
Is it possible?
Is it possible for anybody to suggest that women suffer a degree of discrimination, glass ceilings or other?
Yes.
And if it's true, can you understand that?
Maybe if you're a father and you see the effect of your daughter or your wife or whatever it is.
But how do we know so much about black folks?
How do we know about it?
Why?
Because we have been polarized by this.
It's been so politicized.
A lot of people have had it just up to here with us.
I don't want to talk about this.
I'm just so tired of it.
So sick and tired of it.
I'm so sick and tired of it.
That's what people think.
And that's something that people have to kind of sort of maybe understand to an extent.
Ladies and gentlemen, John McGuire.
Thank you, John.
Yes, it was legit, and the degree was substantial.
However, it's dying off.
The bulk of the legit races I know are pushing 90. Thank you, John.
Let me take what you're saying.
Yes, it was legit.
Yes, it is legit.
Yes, it was, whatever.
Okay, fine.
Here's what I want to bring it back to.
That's great.
Okay, and we should do our best.
However, college admissions is a different story.
If you want the best students, you don't let somebody in who has poorer grades because he's black.
That is unconstitutional.
That's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
It's a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
What does it have to do with it?
Why do you tell me you want grades, John?
Not you, but why do you tell me you want grades?
Why do you tell me you want to have these people?
These students.
Who have high GPAs.
And you study hard.
No!
What you're saying is, study hard if you're white.
Or if you're Asian.
If you're Asian now at Harvard, you've got to be even smarter than the regular non-Asian white.
Because they don't like you.
Bill de Blasio showed that same kind of discrimination because here in New York we have two schools, Stuyvesant High School and Bronx School of Science, and they were clobbered with Asians, Asian Americans.
They came out of the woodwork.
What is this?
People who came here, one generation, didn't speak English, some have accents now, but the work, they weren't historically, genetically smarter.
So when I say John McGuire is fine, whether people were historically Asian, that's terrific.
Now, let me also say something.
Do you think people really care about diversity, or is that an excuse?
Do you think they really mean, proponents of this, really say, it's diversity that I want.
Really?
You really want that you think, what kind of diversity?
The only diversity I'm hearing is about you.
Do you think that Asian perspectives, various iterations of white America, white middle class America, is that a part of the calculus of your diversity?
I'm not hearing that.
Because when I hear diversity, I don't hear.
That means African American, people of color, Latino, Latinx, Latinx.
Transgender, LGBTQIA, that's what I'm hearing.
LGBTQIA doesn't even have straight.
There's no, you know, lesbian, hetero, it's not in there.
Cisgender, not interested.
So let's just, who agrees with this?
Let's stop saying diversity.
Because that's not what People want who say they want diversity.
Is that fair enough?
And it goes back to this.
The Constitution doesn't care about diversity.
The Constitution says, I don't care.
You cannot discriminate differently based upon color.
Pro-white, anti-white, pro-black, anti-black, you can't do it.
Can't do it.
Compelling governmental interests, you don't have it.
Period.
And if colleges end up All Asian?
So what?
What do you think this is?
A social club?
So what?
Let me say this again.
Now this is not the constitutional argument.
We live in a lot of places with a lot of diversity that's potentially there.
Housing.
People shouldn't be kept out of housing because of their race.
Does everybody here have any problem with their children marrying, quote, outside of their race?
Be surprised how many folks would say, well, wait a minute, I'm not that diverse.
And this goes across the board.
But let me ask you this question.
Let's assume that there are some colleges, or that one day Harvard University is nothing but, I don't think it's going to happen, but it could be, theoretically, all Asian.
Because you could say, look at these Look at these scores.
We've got the creme de la creme.
We have the academic creme.
Yeah, but...
But what?
Well...
But what?
Well...
What do you mean, well?
There's just too many Asians.
What does that mean?
What difference does it make?
You know, the NBA...
I hate to say that.
Again, different topic.
It's too many.
So what?
I don't care.
Boxing right now, boxing is, forget that it was boxing, MMA is a different story.
There was one point where the boxing used, boxing and horse racing were in the front pages of all newspapers.
Boxing used to be, John McGuire used to be, people wanted to say, who is the Harvard boxing champ?
Each university had a The heavyweight had a boxing champ.
Not anymore until people realize what CTE did.
So what happened was boxing eventually went later on to poorer folks, to black, Latino.
That's where boxing, the great boxers were from elsewhere.
Because that was a way to get out of poverty.
But they also happened to be the greatest boxers of all time.
Let me explain this to you.
You had a propensity, a predilection, so to speak, to see and to find these boxers who were non-white.
But they were great.
They were great.
Nobody ever said, okay, let's stop this.
Let's go back to the...
More of a diverse boxing.
Great.
If you can beat Muhammad Ali, you go ahead.
They kept talking about the Great White Hope.
In every other sport, every other aspect of life prior to 1947 baseball, who cares whether universities are all black or white?
Who cares?
If they are, fine.
Why do I need this?
I'm supposedly colorblind, right?
That's what we're supposed to be.
I don't know about you, but if all of my doctors were Chinese, all of my neighbors...
I don't...
What does it...
Now, there might be something where you might say to yourself, you know, this may sound...
I would prefer maybe to live in a different neighborhood.
Why?
Well, because I didn't know...
I want to see...
I don't communicate.
My Chinese is not very good.
I think they're wonderful people, but I want to move there.
There are places, there are parts of New York where people, Astoria, Queens, Astoria rather, Greeks, and Brighton Beach, the Russians, and Little Italy, and Little...
I mean, that's okay.
That's preference.
But they're going to end affirmative action.
Because it doesn't make any sense.
Don't stop telling us that this is about performance.
Stop doing this.
Stop telling us.
You cannot say we're going to take race into account.
And listen to this lunacy.
Again, this is what drove Scalia nuts.
The use of an applicant's race, this is again Grutter against Bollinger, 2003, the use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment if the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body.
And if it uses a holistic process to evaluate each applicant This is gibberish!
This is gibberish!
What does this mean?
How do I read this story?
How do I read the case and say, okay, let me apply the law.
I don't understand this.
What does this mean?
And it's going to end.
And what happens is, the liberals, as they say, are going nuts.
Now what I'm saying is, maybe you might want to craft a different...
Maybe a piece of legislation or something, or have a school that says, not only have we gotten rid of SATs and ACTs and blah blah, we just, our school just lets people in like a private school.
People that we just like.
People who look like us and people who, okay.
Go ahead.
Well, but that's not fair.
Why is that not fair?
Well, because those are private schools and not everybody can afford them.
Okay, how about you want to do charter schools and have vouchers?
Well, I don't want to get into that.
Why?
Because of Randy Weingarten and the teacher's unit.
Let me ask you something.
Will we ever, ever, ever stop racism?
Do we have racism?
Are there people who make their money, who make their bread and butter?
By claiming there's racism?
Is there?
Does this do nothing but just encourage racism?
When you hear this, when you find out that you've had a, that there is a requirement, let's say the physical requirement for the Jacksonville, Florida Fire Department, I just picked that hypothetically, and they found out that there are fewer women, very few women, who passed the test.
What do we do?
Do we lower the test?
Wait a minute, so the test isn't required?
Well, The test was for men.
Is there such a thing as a male fire?
If I have a ladies fire, like moving the T, we're going to get to that again also.
There are physical differences.
You know that.
Are you going to do that now that there are trans individuals?
Are you going to lower the standards?
Are you going to say you do not have to carry 200-pound hoses up five flights of stairs anymore?
Is that what you're saying?
Do you call for certain elite fire departments who have brawny people, male or female, who are able to handle this?
Do you see where this is going?
We want there to be the end result of this thing called diversity.
And we destroy everything in the middle to get there.
We don't care.
Grades don't mean anything.
Don't worry about grades.
Who are you?
Ooh, you're in.
You are in.
You are in.
They'll also turn around and say, well, you know, Clarence Thomas got into Yale Law School because of affirmative action.
Did he really?
Maybe he did.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Are we supposed to end this?
This is, if there's one thing, and by the way, I know this sounds...
Nobody's going to believe what I'm saying.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits for you to have sexual...
And by the way, it's interesting.
I don't want to bore you with this, but if you were to have an application, if you were to use the 14th Amendment, and you were to say, okay, you've got a statute, I want to get this thing right.
Let's say you have a statute.
You're going to love this one.
Okay.
Suspect classification.
Okay, you're going to love this.
Ready for this?
Okay.
This is what you would have to know historically if you're taking a bar exam.
Suspect classification is a class or a group of people who possess a series of criteria suggesting that they're the likely victims of discrimination.
So what happens is these classes receive closer scrutiny By the courts when equal protection challenges are made.
You understand this?
So depending upon who you are, for example, if you have a group of people who are involved, let me see, if you are, let me see, suspect classes are, race, religion, national origin, and alienage, Those are the suspect classifications.
That means those get a real serious look.
Alienage is the state or condition of being an alien.
For those of you who don't know.
Okay?
So, you're a suspect class and you have to have strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny.
Alienage.
Okay.
Now, Strict scrutiny is that.
What about intermediate scrutiny?
Intermediate scrutiny is for gender.
Gender involves intermediate scrutiny.
And they're likely to hold up the discriminatory law if under intermediate scrutiny, if the law has an exceedingly persuasive justification, And applies to real fact-based or biological differences.
Oh my God!
So that means that under the strict race, gender, whatever, strict scrutiny.
Female gender, male gender, you're here, intermediate.
Rational basis test.
For everything else, rational basis test means forget it.
Is the discrimination even related to something at all?
For what about sexual preference?
Or weight or physical attributes.
So, strict scrutiny.
Very high.
Compelling governmental interest.
Is there a reason why you're treating people differently?
Intermediate.
Gender.
Okay.
14th Amendment applies, but...
And then, rational basis, everybody else.
Does that make any sense to you?
Where is that in the Constitution?
Nowhere.
The Supreme Court came up with that one.
And that's going to go, wait until you see, they're going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
Now we're going to add homophobia and transgenderism and all that into this mix.
We're going to add that.
So you're going to have to consider that to be as scrupulously reviewed as is the other case.
Oh, get ready!
Get ready.
And the only thing, the only thing that is stopping this is President Trump and his positions, his Supreme Court cases.
You know Jimmy Carter never had one Supreme Court nominee or anybody?
Never.
This is going to be the fight and they are not going to stop.
Now let me say this again.
Let me say this.
Number one, I do not believe if you follow the Constitution, if you follow the civil rights law, that we should discriminate, meaning treat differently people based on race.
That's it.
That's it.
Sometimes you may like that, sometimes you may not.
I don't know.
Period.
You may walk into a school and say, hey!
Everybody's black here.
We didn't discriminate on race.
We had an application process.
We're not one.
There were no essays.
There were no pictures.
There were no codes.
You know that in the old days when you would go to try to get a job, the employment person would say, oh, thank you for your application.
She put a mark or something.
Wouldn't say it on the application, but a paperclip here versus a paperclip here.
By the way, Operation Paperclip is the reason why That term came up as the way the paperclip was put to distinguish the German soldier, scientist from...
Anyway.
I don't care about that.
I don't care if the NBA, if schools, I don't care.
It doesn't matter to me.
If that's the way it is, so be it.
I'm providing the most equality.
It may not be diverse.
Diversity, I cannot...
Diversity is something you hope for.
Diversity is like when we talk about, do you eat a balanced diet?
I hope you do.
I hope you do.
It's something that we aspire to.
But I can't mandate it.
I can't.
Let me ask you, ladies, this has nothing to do.
Answer this question if you are a lady.
Do you prefer a female gynecologist to a male?
Yes or no?
No.
Ladies only, do you prefer going to a woman?
Do you prefer going to a female gynecologist, if you're a woman, versus a man?
Very simple.
If the answer is yes, put one.
If the answer is two, or you don't care, press two.
That's all.
It's very simple.
Laura says, yes.
I'm not going to even...
Diane says, yes.
Okay.
Do you prefer...
Now, that doesn't mean you're going to leave.
You're going to tell Marcus Welby, no.
But if you had your druthers...
Gabriella, yes.
Liz says, yes.
Sadie, yes.
I, most, wouldn't you say most women think that?
I think most women, that I, by my random, prefer, not that you wouldn't go, if you say, no, no, this man is the, I've got a guy here especially for oncology or trouble pregnancy, you don't care about that.
But if you had a preference, when you can go and you talk to a woman and you feel that you feel comfortable that she has some reference to, and I think we all know, I think maybe, maybe, Maybe.
Now, is this sexism?
Is this sexism?
Is this a lack of diversity?
Is there something wrong with you?
Is there something wrong with you?
And by the way, if we're on the subject of doctors, can we then go to race?
Gender?
How about foreign?
Accents.
I love the idea of an accent.
I had a debate one time.
There was a woman who had a very, very thick accent.
Spanish.
Very thick.
Very smart.
Multilingual.
But her English had a thick accent.
And somebody would say, well, she'll not make it on TV.
Why?
Why?
Well, because she speaks English.
Perfectly.
Listen to what she's saying.
Transcribe it as perfectly.
But she has an accent.
So what?
Yeah, but that's different.
Because people think that Spanish accents don't sound as smart as, let's say, a British accent.
Or a French accent.
We have these biases.
If somebody says, I looked at your fallopian tube and it is...
Thank you, Dr. Valjean.
Thank you.
Oh.
Oh.
I went to a French doctor.
He looked at my axilla.
He thought I was doing it.
The infection had cleared up.
Thank you, Dr. Valjean.
As opposed to somebody saying, listen to me.
Wait a minute.
Hold it.
Wait a minute.
This guy's a genius.
But his English stinks.
Well, we have these.
What about Chinese?
Well, that's different.
What do you mean it's different?
Well, that's more Indian.
Okay.
French.
Okay.
British.
Maybe.
Mexican.
No.
Wait a minute.
What difference?
You don't realize this.
You...
Don't really.
You have preferences.
And it's not racial.
You don't hate these people.
You prefer...
Everything.
Your life is one preference after another.
You like this cologne and not this.
You like to eat at this time and not like this.
You like this show and not like this.
Oh, they got rid of Tucker?
I'm not going to watch them.
I'm biased.
I don't like this.
I don't like Biden.
I like Trump.
I don't like Trump.
I don't like Biden.
Your whole life is one preference after another based upon things that make no sense.
But yet when it comes to race and gender, you're supposed to be open-minded and only 176 likes.
That is abysmal.
You only gave me 176 likes?
I don't.
We are not hateful because we don't like certain things.
Let me just get this.
Diversity means nothing.
My female doctor and male intern asked if I wouldn't mind if he did the internal.
I'm 50, so I'm not quite as modest as I used to be.
They have to learn, too.
Yeah.
I guess so.
I went to a...
I mean, I'm trying to think.
But what I'm saying to you, before we begin, You are not a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobe, misanthropic, misandrist, misandrist, misandry, misogynistic, transphobic, if you say, I don't want to go to this.
Let me ask you this.
Doctor comes in.
First time.
Guy walks in.
He's 50. Versus somebody who's 25. 30. 50 versus 30, he's a doctor.
What do you see?
50. He's a doctor.
When you see a pilot, you know when you go to the airplane, good morning, and the pilot's out there?
When you see an older pilot, what do you think sometimes?
Don't you think, well, do you want a diverse Pilot?
Pool?
When you go to, you know, JetBlue or United, do you want to say, you know, I go to United because, well, they have far more.
They have more trans pilots than, wait a minute, nobody thinks like this.
Why?
Where does this, I heard someone say, it was the Solicitor General, that we need a divergent, diverse military in order To be a better military if we have...
Wait a minute.
What?
Military?
What does a military do?
What are you talking about?
None of us care.
But don't think that just because you like something or don't like something, you want people to be denied civil rights.
Everybody.
Now they want to pass something in New York because you can't discriminate against fat or weight.
What does that mean?
I don't even know what that means.
I don't know what that means.
There was a case recently of a woman who was in a chair and by virtue, bless her heart, she was very overweight and I worry about her weight, about her health.
And she was in a very tiny seat.
And she was saying, I need special accommodations.
I need more room.
And don't bring me that double, extendable seatbelt.
That's embarrassing.
Okay, it may be embarrassing, but we don't need...
We don't need...
One time I said this and people got upset.
And I said, I'm not kidding.
I said, you know when you go to a ride, you know, one of these rides at a park or whatever it is.
It's a roller coaster.
They have a height.
If you're as tall as this kid, what if when you went on a plane, you know how they have that little If your overhead can fit in this, you can bring it on.
What if they had a silhouette?
And if you can fit in this silhouette, you're in.
But if you can't, not because we hate overweight people, not because of that, but because of safety and because of accommodations, and because of that poor schmuck in the middle.
If you have two large people who...
Are fine, wonderful people, but you have this person in the middle of these people's arms because they came up pouring over.
It's not fair.
Tell me how it's fair for a person who, for whatever it's worth, if somebody is eight feet tall, Andre the Giant had to do it.
He had to buy two seats and sit in the front, and he didn't say, hey, how come I don't have my, you know, no, he, you know.
This is all I care about.
Legislation's over here.
The Constitution's over here.
That's all.
So, bottom line.
Will affirmative action, will the Bollinger case be repealed?
Absolutely.
What will that mean?
We'll see.
They'll have to come up with new ways to do the same stuff.
Using new nomenclature, new ways of thinking, new appellations, new doctrines, new codes, new whatever.
But it is going away.
And it has to because of this 40th Amendment.
It doesn't make any sense.
It is unfair.
And it doesn't matter why, why you're doing it.
It doesn't matter why your diversity, your...
I mean, can you imagine if somebody were to say, I have a club, and my club happens to cater to a music, and you know what?
And we just...
All we get are, I mean, almost exclusively, you know, Mexican-Americans.
But this is...
Tejana music.
I know, but you know, I want to have more divergence.
But you're not.
It's the music.
So I'm going to cut off entrance at about 50% and give half price to non-Mexicans so that when they look, we have ladies' night, right?
You know what people would say?
They'd say, that's discrimination.
You're denying me public accommodation or something because of my alienage?
No, no, that's not it.
It's because I want there to be more diversity.
You're telling me I can't come in.
This is my...
I want to see these people.
I'm an American citizen.
I may be from someplace else.
That wouldn't last.
You could talk all you want about how divergent and the problem...
And historically, we want to have more of a diverse and more of an ecumenical, more of a heterogeneous...
No, no, no.
You cannot mandate diversity everywhere, especially when the diversity that's mandated actually deprives people of fundamental constitutional rights, of equal protection under the law.
That's it.
It's over, probably by the end of July.
Now, coming up tonight, we're going to be talking about this other case.
Tune in at 7. Oh, this one is...
She is the...
Oh my God, Rachel Rollins.
Dear!
This is the prototypical Soros prosecutor that you cannot believe.
And for her to step down?
Dear!
Alright, dear friends, have a great and glorious day.
Thank you for being with us.
Thank you for sharing an hour and eight minutes of your life with us.
Make sure you like this.
213 likes.
Your likes are critical.
That little algorithm, that little click, that little, okay, means that we go out to more people.
And more people say, I like this guy.
I like these people.
It's hard to...
I thought he was...
But he says some...
I don't know.
That's what we need.
That's why your liking this is so, so, so critical.
Alright, we'll see you tonight at 7pm.
Bring your thinking caps and your open mind then.
Until then, remember this particular valedictory.
The monkey's dead.
The show's over.
Sue ya.
▲
Export Selection