Back in February we reported here on the federal district court ruling that the new “diversity” admissions process for the elite Thomas Jefferson High School in Alexandria, Virginia, had illegally discriminated against Asians. (Who do they think they are—Harvard?)
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has unfortunately granted a stay against the district court’s ruling pending further appeal, which means TJ can continue discriminating against Asians for next fall’s admissions:
Judge Toby Heytens wrote that he has “grave doubts” about Hilton’s conclusions “regarding both disparate impact and discriminatory purpose” of the new admissions policy.
“In my view, appellant Fairfax County School Board is likely to succeed in its appeal,” Heytens wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Allison Jones Rushing said putting Hilton’s ruling on hold while the school board appeals his decision is not in the public interest. Jones said any logistical difficulties or inconvenience associated with changing the admissions policy at this late date “simply do not outweigh the infringement of constitutional rights.”
“And everyone – even temporarily frustrated applicants and their families – ultimately benefits from a public-school admissions process not tainted by unconstitutional discrimination,” Rushing wrote.
Over to you, Supreme Court. Suddenly the Harvard/UNC case is looming larger and larger beyond just admissions to elite universities.
Meanwhile, on the plus side, a California state court has struck down as unconstitutional a recent California law that mandated corporations must “diversity” their boards of directors:
A Los Angeles judge ruled Friday that California’s landmark law mandating that corporations diversify their boards with members from certain racial, ethnic or LGBT groups is unconstitutional.
The brief ruling granted summary judgment to Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sought a permanent injunction against the measure that was signed into law last year. . .
The measure requires corporate boards of publicly traded companies with a main executive office in California to have a member from an “underrepresented community,” including LGBT, Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander. The lawsuit argued that violated the state’s constitutional equal protection clause.