I wrote an op-ed when this happened, you can find it in Rolling Out magazine. Many progressives agreed that we need to get rid of affirmative actions, Supreme Court needs to get rid of this, it's bad. I disagreed with my progressive friends. And I said, this is chess, not checkers. [00:00:16] They're utilizing this as a proxy in order to come after black students, scholarships, everything else. Listed it line by line. Here we are. The who took down affirmative action now is [00:00:32] targeting black scholarships. An anti-affirmative action group, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was behind the Supreme Court overturning affirmative action, has its sights on the next [00:00:50] target. See, this is their true target. The congressional black Black Caucus Foundation. The organization alleges that college scholarships for black students from underfunded schools [00:01:07] and majority black districts illegally discriminate based on race. Now you may be wondering why are they targeting the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation? One, it's a quasi-political body. [00:01:22] I say quasi because they operate as a foundation, okay? But they are in fact quasi-political because of the individuals involved. Number two, you only need one ruling to create the [00:01:38] case law that effectively becomes the rule for every other scholarship that funds Black people. United Negro College Fund. is for black people. The NAACP college fund is for black people, [00:02:09] But if you get one win, you create case law that all of the courts, because of the supremacy clause, will follow if it comes from the Supreme Court. Quote, racial discrimination is unconscionable. [00:02:27] says the lawsuit by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, which wages legal challenges to programs with race-based eligibility. Quote, an awarding educational opportunities to some [00:02:43] young constituents, but not others, based on the color of their skin, is neither conscientious nor legal. And I have to say this, That's not how it works. Affirmative action never worked [00:03:00] that way. You never qualify somebody who's not qualified because of affirmative action. They already have to be qualified based on the normative rules of the qualification. They have to already be qualified. Number one, number two, white women benefited more than any other demographic [00:03:20] as a relation to affirmative action in the United States of America. Number three, Affirmative action is not a policy, it's a framework. It's an idea, it's a goal, it's a diversity goal. And you are free to set those diversity goals as you see fit. Because higher education, institutional [00:03:43] education has something to do with academics, but it has much more to do with enrichment. You are enriched. by a diverse. Scholarship, individuals, friends, a cohort. And the institution [00:04:06] may say, we care about that part. We care about learning in diverse settings. That is the prerogative of the institution. They care about the framework of their educational output. [00:04:27] The lawsuit filed in the DC Federal Court alleges that the foundation CBC spouses education scholarship discriminates on the basis of race by limiting the eligibility to black students in districts [00:04:43] represented by caucus members. The program, one of several scholarships foundation offers, provides assistance ranging from 2,500 to 20,000, about 300. of 3,000 applicants win scholarships annually according to the lawsuit. Now, they're not filing a suit against legacy students. [00:05:10] Students who get special treatment opportunities to attend Ivy League colleges because their parents made a big investment into the endowment. contribution into the adamin. Because they [00:05:27] graduated from there or they're on the board of trustees. Restricting a scholarship to black students violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the law originally passed to give citizens or citizenship rights to formerly enslaved African Americans [00:05:48] has now been used in recent years to target. a slew of programs that seek to help African Americans diversify corporations, etc. Quote, [00:06:08] all qualified students, regardless of their race, deserve the same opportunity to compete for this scholarship. Edward Bloom, the leader of the American Alliance of Equal Rights, said in a statement, is to be hoped this lawsuit will ensure that outcome. The plaintiffs are [00:06:25] two unnamed students who belong to Bloom's organization. One is Asian and one is Hispanic who said they cannot apply for the scholarship because of their race. Now, put up bloom. Understand [00:06:40] the driving force has nothing to do with them caring about the scholarship. It has everything to do with a strategy to create law by way of judicial ruling. And every time they get one of these wins, they chip away at equitable access. See, equal only exists in mathematics. I know [00:07:04] it sounds good. And it's a good noble thing to believe in. But equal only exists in mathematics. In the social context, we have to play through, run through, check hopefully our biases, our [00:07:23] inadequacies, our mistakes. our preferences. And when these outcomes produce an effect that shows one demographic continues to be at the bottom of the totem pole, you have to enact [00:07:41] equitable policy in order to create something that resembles equality. um Bloom was the driving force behind the landmark Supreme Court decision. in 2023 overturning race conscious admissions [00:08:03] at the nation's most prestigious university. students, excuse me, the decision students for fair admission versus president and fellows at Harvard prompted the cascade of lawsuits alleging that diversity, equity and inclusion programs discriminate against white men. That [00:08:25] was the basis of the argument. There is no removing this legacy, ladies and gentlemen. Quote. from the earliest days. CBC spouses recognized a troubling reality. Black students [00:08:44] were navigating inequitable education systems, while federal investments in education were shrinking. Muriel Cooper, an administrator. at the organization wrote in a blog post, quote, [00:09:02] for many recipients, a CBC spouse's scholarship represents not just financial assistance, but validation, visibility, and belief. I'll put about this. [00:09:22] The CBC, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, does not comment on pending litigation, but the foundation's president, her name is Nicole Austin Hillary, said in a statement, quote. [00:09:38] We were founded to help open doors to educational opportunities and training for the next generation of leaders to provide research and to offer public education on emerging policy issues. [00:09:53] CBCF remains committed to these goals and to providing opportunity for all who can benefit from our work and programs. It's not complex, it's not rocket science. They are aiming to [00:10:09] take away the very programs that gave proper, equitable access to individuals who wanted it. We can argue that even with those policies, that access was only equitable in writing. [00:10:31] Because the carryout still created a differentiation model that should not exist. Your zip code should not determine. If you go to college or not, you should. I read your brother thoughts. [00:10:49] First of all, this is one of my least favorite types of conversations to engage in. I hate having to debate this. It's debating somebody, I say the sky is blue, you say the sky is red. Well, first of all, I'm not engaged in debate with you, because either you're crazy or you're disingenuous. Because you're engaged in the debate, you might land on, well, maybe it's [00:11:08] purple. Well, it ain't, it's blue. 400 years, where only one class of a person was allowed to own land, was allowed to become educated, was allowed to vote, was allowed to make laws, was allowed to read, and everybody else, was illegal for them to do. That's affirmative [00:11:26] action. An additional 150 years of Jim Crow, where a lot of those laws were still in practice, even though they weren't written explicitly, that's affirmative action. This is correcting, the affirmative action we're talking about now is correcting a mistake, and we've all had [00:11:42] what? 20 good years of it before they start. So I'm 26, I am a third generation college student. I mean, I was when was in college, college graduate. Which is relatively uncommon for a black person. So it's not uncommon for a black person to be in college this generation. [00:12:00] It was less common for my father's generation, but not too rare. For my grandfather's generation, it was extremely rare. And if you go back another generation, it's illegal. Right, so all these. these graduates of these institution, go to Auburn University, which is a predominantly white institution. But you have some of these folks that come on campus that I'm a sixth [00:12:19] generation college student, or I'm a sixth generation Harvard graduate in my legacy program. What was that? What's that? Because at that point in time, you are a beneficiary right now in today's time. So people always act like this is ancient history. You today are a beneficiary of a system that is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years old. So now to engage in [00:12:39] conversation like, well, now it's racist to give a disenfranchised group of people a leg up. Now it's racist. Where was that argument before? And like you said, where is the lawsuit against legacy admissions? because a lot of schools are still having practitioners of that. It's such a ridiculous premise that they're starting from, that it's not even worth going [00:13:02] down the logical debate with it. To make it even worse, once again, they have the ear or ears of the Supreme Court.