On Thursday, Never-Trumpers were shown to be wrong again.
The Trump Justice Department sided with Asian students and parents suing Harvard University. The lawsuit, brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Harvard has systematically discriminated against Asian-American applicants in college admissions.
The department filed a “Statement of Interest” with the court presiding over the case, supporting the plaintiffs’ claims and arguing against Harvard’s motion to dismiss the case without a hearing.
“Bravo” is what conservatives should say. Of course, the Hillary Clinton administration, for which many Never-Trumpers were pining, would have never taken such action.
Discrimination against Asian Americans in higher education has long been commonplace. It is widely known and widely acknowledged, and the SFFA lawsuit has merely revealed just how egregious that racial discrimination is.
Universities like Harvard shamelessly say that they consider race as a factor in college admissions in order to pursue the educational benefits of diversity in its student body, but diversity is the concept with which these elite institutions justify their racism.
Already, the SFFA lawsuit has uncovered what Harvard itself knew for years. An internal university study concluded in 2013 that Asian Americans would comprise 43 percent of the admitted class, not the actual 19 percent share, if academics were the only admissions criteria. The Asian admit rate would be 31 percent after accounting for Harvard’s preference for recruited athletes and legacies, and 26 percent after also accounting for applicants’ extracurricular and personal ratings.
A new report by Dr. Althea Nagai of the Center for Equal Opportunity examines Harvard’s internal research and concludes that being African American or Native American is a considerably large “plus factor” in admissions to Harvard, while being Hispanic is a plus factor to a smaller extent.
Yet, being Asian is a “minus” factor all around. Not only are Asian applicants’ academic credentials downplayed, but their personal ratings, a subjective measurement of qualities such as courage, likability, and helpfulness, consistently receive low marks from admissions officers who have never met them.
The political Left are avid supporters of this type of racial discrimination because it serves as a pillar of their political correctness and identity politics. Conservatives, however, have long understood the morally bankruptcy of this political ideology as well as the injustice of its real-life applications.
In the Trump era, the Justice Department is openly saying so in court. It is also conducting an investigation into possible civil rights violations by Harvard.
Additionally, the Trump administration announced in early July that it was rescinding Obama-era guidance that urged universities to consider race as a factor in student admissions.
In other words, not only has this administration pursued tax reform, deregulation, the nomination and confirmation of conservative judges, and other policies that conservatives support, but it has also pursued the cherished conservative goal of undermining and ending racial preferences. Talk about stabbing political correctness in the heart.
Needless to say, the sanctimony of all the Never-Trumpers has not been able to accomplish the same.
Ying Ma (@GZtoGhetto) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential Blog. She is the author of Chinese Girl in the Ghetto , which has just been released in audio book. During the 2016 election, she served as the deputy director of the Committee for American Sovereignty, a pro-Trump super PAC, and the deputy policy director and deputy communications director of the Ben Carson presidential campaign.
