• Economy
  • Investing
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Stock
Keep Over Tradings
Economy

After Harvard: Dismantle the Infrastructure of Racial Preference

by July 7, 2025
by July 7, 2025

Conservatives are right to celebrate judicial victories, but they would be wise to remember that every courtroom fight is a rearguard action. A judicial victory arrives only after the political branches or national institutions have retreated from conservative positions. Conservatives’ recent victories came only after a president forced nuns to pay for abortions, a state persecuted a religious business owner, and elite universities picked winners and losers by skin color.   

It’s good to win the courts but better to win the offices, institutions, and culture. The judiciary can stave off defeat, but the prior three can push on to victory. Evidence for this claim comes from the Trump Administration’s efforts to turn the judicial victory against universities’ race discrimination into a larger conservative counterattack.  

We see the administration’s strategy in executive orders, proposed rules, and official letters, in which the administration signals its intent to export the logic of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard to contexts beyond college admissions. In that case, the Court said that colleges could no longer give preference to applicants based on race, and ended an exemption from the nation’s civil rights laws the Court had previously crafted for colleges. 

At a casual glance, it might not seem obvious that Students for Fair Admissions can be exported to other contexts. After all, that case was about college admissions, and the only thing that the Court seemed to do was close a loophole that it had previously given to universities so that they could ignore the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. Every other government and private entity remained bound by those provisions. But a closer reading of the decision reveals a logic that can’t be limited to universities, and it’s this logic that the administration is aggressively pushing into other contexts.   

Three of the decision’s premises are key to the administration’s offensive. First, race preferences, if permissible at all, must be temporary. Second, race preferences cannot be based on stereotypes or used as a negative. And third, the racial categories used to administer preferences cannot be arbitrary. The decision does not say that these premises apply only in the context of college admissions. On the contrary, the decision anchors each premise in higher notions of what is moral, prudent, and constitutional. And often, the justices supported each premise with citations to cases in very broad contexts.  

The administration has taken the Supreme Court’s premises at face value, arguing that all three apply just as broadly as the Court seems to suggest.  

We can see this strategy in execution in a recent lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty against the Department of Transportation for using race and sex preferences to dole out $37 billion in federal contracts. Like many federal and state agencies, the Department of Transportation sets aside billions of dollars of federal grants for businesses owned by “disadvantaged” minorities. These set-asides sometimes take the form of preferences, and at other times explicit quotas, but they all share a presumption: anyone from one or more specific race and sex categories is presumptively “disadvantaged,” and anyone who is white, or Asian, or male is not.   

The Biden administration defended this preference program, but a few months after taking power, the Trump Administration signed a consent decree admitting that the program “violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.” Students for Fair Admission was key to this conclusion. In fact, it is the only authority cited in the consent decree.  

Again, curious, given the different context. But apply each of that decision’s key premises and things become clear. 

First, none of these preference programs is temporary. They have existed for decades and, unless repealed or enjoined, will endure forever, just like Harvard’s discriminatory admissions policies. And there’s no reason to think that these programs are exempt from the temporal requirement that applied to Harvard. The Court based that requirement not on anything specific to universities, but on a principle that applies much more broadly: the “ultimate goal” of all race-based programs must be “eliminating race as a criterion.” That goal applies in all contexts, a fact the Court underscored with a citation to a case about minority contracting preferences. 

Second, most racial contracting preferences rely on stereotypes or treat membership in certain racial groups as a negative. Minority contracting preferences, for example, rely on a presumption that anyone from certain racial and sex groups is “disadvantaged.” Those preferences necessarily treat being white,  (in some cases) Asian, or male as a negative. Those people are denied access to certain contracts in the same way that white and Asian applicants were denied seats in Harvard’s freshman class. In fact, the problem with contracting preferences may be worse. Although Harvard’s “holistic” review theoretically gave white and Asian applicants a chance to explain how, despite their skin color, they brought diversity to Harvard, federal contracting presumptions are nearly irrebuttable. 

Finally, the government’s racial categories are the same categories that Harvard used — categories that are frustratingly arbitrary, as law professor David E. Bernstein showed in his remarkable study of the origins and uses of America’s race labels (black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and the like). In casual conversation, these labels might serve tolerably well. But as the basis of well-reasoned public policy or, heaven forbid, medical research, they create total, sometimes dangerous, confusion.

What, for example, was the relationship between these categories and Harvard’s goal of “diversity”? By Harvard’s logic, no diversity exists among people labeled “white,” even though that category lumped together Israeli Jews, Saudi Muslims, and Irish Catholics. Similarly, there was no diversity among “Asians,” even though that category includes 60 percent of the world’s population, and nations as diverse as Pakistan, Japan, and Indonesia. And there was no diversity worth discussing among “Hispanic” people and “black” people, even though both groups include vast populations spanning myriad cultures, religions, ethnicities, backgrounds, and classes.  

The Supreme Court outlawed these categories in school admissions because they are “imprecise,” “opaque,” “overbroad,” “arbitrary,” “underinclusive,” and lack a “meaningful connection between the means they employ and the goals they pursue.” That flaw recurs when the government uses those labels for minority contracting preferences. When the government presumes that every black, Hispanic, or female person is “disadvantaged” and every white, Asian, or male person is privileged, it acts just as irrationally as Harvard did.

The same goes for nearly any other use we might make of these labels — medical research, reparations, government benefits — and that’s why Trump’s civil rights enforcers have gilded the tips of their spears with Students for Fair Admissions.   

Theoretically, the Supreme Court, too, could wield Students for Fair Admissions against other discriminatory programs. Lower courts are doing so, but for reasons unknown, the high court refuses even to wield the case against other cases of discrimination in school admissions. 

Even if the Court had the courage to take the offensive, it can only ever react to cases brought before it. Serious and sustained forward progress comes when other institutions mount counterattacks based on the Court’s rearguard victories — a lesson that conservatives should take to heart. 

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
FPX Nickel Receives Multi-Year Area-BasedPermit and Commences 2025 Drilling Activities at Baptiste Nickel Project
next post
Asara Resources

Related Posts

Deporting Millions Won’t Boost the Economy — and...

July 11, 2025

Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on...

July 11, 2025

Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on...

July 11, 2025

Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on...

July 11, 2025

Why Trump’s Copper Tariffs Will Hurt US Industry...

July 10, 2025

Reagan’s Trade Gamble: The Story Behind the Voluntary...

July 10, 2025

How Racism Was Redefined—and Turned into a Political...

July 10, 2025

How Racism Was Redefined—and Turned into a Political...

July 10, 2025

Reagan’s Trade Gamble: The Story Behind the Voluntary...

July 10, 2025

Why Trump’s Copper Tariffs Will Hurt US Industry...

July 9, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on Fossil Fuels?
  • Deporting Millions Won’t Boost the Economy — and Chaos is Costly
  • FPX Nickel Announces Share-Based Compensation Grant
  • Blue Lagoon Resources Officially Opens Dome Mountain Gold Mine in British Columbia
  • Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on Fossil Fuels?

    Master Your Money – Sign Up for Our Financial Education Newsletter!


    Ready to take your financial knowledge to the next level? Our newsletter delivers easy-to-understand guides, expert advice, and actionable tips straight to your inbox. Whether you're saving for a dream vacation or planning for retirement, we’ve got you covered. Sign up today and start your journey to financial freedom!

    Recent Posts

    • Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on Fossil Fuels?

      July 11, 2025
    • Deporting Millions Won’t Boost the Economy — and Chaos is Costly

      July 11, 2025
    • FPX Nickel Announces Share-Based Compensation Grant

      July 11, 2025
    • Blue Lagoon Resources Officially Opens Dome Mountain Gold Mine in British Columbia

      July 11, 2025
    • Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on Fossil Fuels?

      July 11, 2025
    • Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs on Fossil Fuels?

      July 11, 2025

    Editors’ Picks

    • 1

      Crypto Market Recap: SEC Crypto ETF Guidance Sets Stage for Wave of New Fund Approvals

      July 7, 2025
    • 2

      Triumph Gold’s Executive Chairman Discusses Utah Silver-Gold Acquisition and Exploration Strategy in New INN CEO Insights Interview

      July 8, 2025
    • 3

      Strong Leach Recoveries and Low Impurities

      July 9, 2025
    • 4

      Fed’s Bowman on the Risks of ‘Set It and Forget It’ Regulatory Culture

      July 7, 2025
    • 5

      Tech 5: US Lifts EDA Restrictions for China, Apple Explores Third Party AI for Siri

      July 6, 2025
    • 6

      Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization Trade Resumption – STUD

      July 7, 2025
    • 7

      New Yorkers Flirt with Socialist Grocery Store Scheme

      July 8, 2025

    Categories

    • Economy (27)
    • Editor’s Pick (3)
    • Investing (62)
    • About us
    • Contacts
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Email Whitelisting

    Disclaimer: keepovertrading.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 keepovertrading.com | All Rights Reserved

    Keep Over Tradings
    • Economy
    • Investing
    • Editor’s Pick
    • Stock
    Keep Over Tradings
    • Economy
    • Investing
    • Editor’s Pick
    • Stock
    Disclaimer: keepovertrading.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 keepovertrading.com | All Rights Reserved

    Read alsox

    Reagan’s Trade Gamble: The Story Behind the...

    July 10, 2025

    How Racism Was Redefined—and Turned into a...

    July 10, 2025

    Will Gen Z Realize Its Future Runs...

    July 11, 2025