High court OKs discrimination

By the time you read this most of you will have consumed all manner of analysis and opinion on last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on race-based affirmative action at universities.

All of it is wrong.

What no one seems to have pointed out is that the court approved colleges’ most discriminatory practice: admissions based on academics and extracurricular nonsense.

(Side note: Many of you will quibble about the definition of “nonsense.” I include cheerleading, AV Club and game playing in the category of nonsense for potential English majors and nuclear physicists.)

(Another side note: Yes, I realize that “legacy” kids and rich kids get preference too, but that’s too obvious. Let's deal with the less-recognized issue.)

You would think, based on the court’s attitude toward race, that affirmative action for the intelligent and accomplished cannot now stand constitutional scrutiny. Substitute “good grades” for “race” anywhere in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and you’ll see what I mean. Smart kids get preference.

Affirmative action for the intelligent, though, isn’t very affirmative. Schools may claim they’re striving for a diverse student body, but they’re not. Being surrounded by smart, motivated people does not prepare anyone for society.

Those of you who are smart — and I know anyone reading this column considers themselves smart whether you are or not — should think back to the days just after college. Wasn’t entry into the real world a shock? Did your university and/or law school prepare you for reality?

You’re exposed to cool friends and professors with all the answers for four or more years, and suddenly you’re working for some nitwit who has trouble with coherent sentences.

You have not been given a diverse education.

Consider Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert. I know this is painful, but consider her for a moment.

Where were the Lauren Boeberts at Harvard? Why was this woman, who represents a real, if annoying, segment of society not offered a college education?

Would not future leaders of America have been better equipped to deal with real Americans if they’d been exposed to merit-lacking women like Lauren Boebert in their university years?

(Side note: Yes, I realize that this sort of exposure at an early age could cause mental health issues. Universities would have to provide counseling.)

If we’re going to be a truly equal society, all discrimination must end. The less-intelligent and/or unmotivated among us deserve the same protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as everyone else.

It’s right there in Justice John Roberts’ opinion last week. He quotes a senator from Michigan (I guess because Michigan senators are traditional precedent setters) saying the amendment gives “the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty.”

So, obviously, everyone no matter how stupid should get the same rights as the most smart (who tend to be pretty haughty).

Equal protection for all.

How do we achieve this?

We have to deal with the real problem: scarcity.

The only reason there’s a problem with diversity is because there’s only a tiny number of slots at premium universities. We wouldn’t have to agonize over this stuff if Harvard admitted 100,000 new students a year instead of 2,000.

All elite universities with huge endowments have to do is buy large amounts of land, build many classrooms and hire lots of teachers so everyone can attend. The savings in admissions litigation should pay for this.

Problem solved.

Late-breaking news. Can strippers discriminate?

OK, I know that was a question, not news, but it immediately came to mind — my mind, that is — when the U. S. Supreme Court on Friday doubled down in favor of discrimination The case is called 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

Elenis is one of a bunch of state officials listed as defendants. No one being discriminated against is involved in the litigation because no one was discriminated against. The plaintiff just wanted to freely discriminate in the future if the opportunity came up.

Again, I know you’ve read all sorts of commentary by now. I won’t repeat it all because I’m far too lazy but what it boils down to is the court said that someone running a public business doesn’t have to say things they don’t want to say.

You legal scholars out there should see the problem — “saying” things can mean almost anything. We have a rich history of case law on the First Amendment-protected communication that goes on in strip clubs. Can a dancer now deny a lap dance to a fat guy?

Apparently, the key for the Supreme Court was whether or not the “speaker” has any creative discretion. So if, say, a gay couple wants a religious baker to whip up a wedding cake meticulously designed by the couple, is the baker engaging in speech by following directions? Is there communication inherent in mixing batter?

We have an avalanche of fascinating speech litigation to look forward to.

Meanwhile, I have advice for the imaginary gay people who for some reason wanted to hire the homophobic plaintiff web designer: hire someone else. There must be another web designer out there somewhere.

Spelling counts. Here’s a quick challenge for you: try to figure out what city is covered by the ZIP code 11772.

Have you got it? (Hint: a certain search engine comes up with it fast.)

That’s right. The answer is Patchogue, New York.

Pretty easy, huh?

If you have a ZIP code, you don’t need to list a city. The Post Office, theoretically, knows where your letter is supposed to go. The address correctly identifies the desired location no matter how you spell the city or if you list the city at all.

Doesn’t it?

An immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, apparently, does not know this. Or doesn’t care to know this. The panel, in a case called Cardenas v. Garland, upheld the removal of an immigrant from Ecuador because the Post Office failed to deliver a hearing notice even though it had the proper ZIP code.

The only thing the would-be immigrant did wrong was spell “Patchogue” as “Patcbogue.”

What could that city possibly have been?

The applicant missed a hearing and got removed because the Post Office couldn’t solve this city mystery.

I should note here that the applicant entered the country in 1999 and the missed hearing was in 2000. This apparently, at least according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, wasn’t a problem until the guy’s lawyer filed a motion to rescind the removal in 2018. So procrastination may have been the real problem.

The lesson here is that spelling counts.

Categories / Op-Ed