© Lauren Petracca for The New York Times
© Zbigniew Bzdak for The New York Times
The Department of Justice is allowing business groups to exclude Americans in posts that advertise jobs to H-1B workers and other non-immigrant foreign workers.
The post Update: Justice Department Continues to Allow H-1B-Targeted Advertising Despite Pleas from Critics appeared first on Breitbart.
Three years after ending affirmative action in higher education, the Supreme Court will hear another case on race-based admissions, this time in middle schools.
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education. The case, which was originally brought forth in 2020 by the Association for Education Fairness (AFEF), a coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland, parents, alleges that Montgomery County's selection process for magnet programs (gifted programs for STEM and humanities studies in middle schools) violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against Asian American students. The county insists that the selection process is race-neutral.
Montgomery County changed its selection process in the 2021–22 school year. According to reporting from The New York Times, the county was facing pressure from community groups, including the NAACP and Citizens Assisting and Sheltering the Abused (CASA Inc.), over the underrepresentation of black and Latino students in its magnet programs. Previously, students were selected based on test scores and grades. The new process implemented a lottery system in which high-achieving students are placed in a selection pool and selected at random.
The AFEF's central complaint is that the new system factors school poverty levels into the criteria for pool eligibility. This means students' eligibility depends on their scores relative to students in similarly affluent or disadvantaged schools, rather than the general population. They argue that since Asian Americans are concentrated in high-performing, lower-poverty schools, they have to clear a higher bar to become eligible. The group alleges the new system has caused fewer Asian American students to be admitted into magnet schools, a claim that is backed up by admissions data (which also show that the share of Asian American applications has fallen). The AFEF also cites Montgomery County's 2015 hiring of Metis, a national consulting firm, to recommend ways to make the system more "equitable" as an indication of the county's effort to "racially balance" its magnet programs.
The complaint was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in 2022, who ruled that the parents hadn't shown the policy disproportionately harmed Asian American students, citing the fact that they made up a larger share of admitted students than of the applicant pool. Xinis drew a distinction between accounting for economic disparities, which she called "wholly permissible," and racial discrimination. "Alleged disparity in treatment based on socioeconomic status alone does not make plausible discrimination on account of race," she wrote in the ruling. The tension raised by Xinis sits at the center of many debates regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, as factors like poverty levels can often become a proxy for race; therefore, policies that are neutral on their face can still disparately impact a certain race.
In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, ruling that precedent from the Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board (2023) requires parents to show the policy disproportionately harmed Asian American applicants, which they hadn't. However, there is a real legal question as to whether racial groups should have to prove they were harmed as a group, as opposed to the individual, and lower courts have given mixed answers.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public-interest law firm representing the AFEF, litigated a similar case in New York City, where the city implemented an economic need index in its admissions process for competitive high schools, aimed at increasing the number of black and Hispanic students. Again, parents alleged that the requirement discriminated against Asian American students. In 2024, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that if the city intended to discriminate, the parents don't have to prove Asian Americans were harmed as a group and that harm to an individual was enough for the case to move forward. The case was sent back to the district court to determine whether the city intended to discriminate, where it remains pending.
The Supreme Court will now settle the issue and determine "whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool," according to SCOTUSBlog.
In a statement on Monday, PLF Senior Attorney Chris Kieser said, "The Constitution protects students as individuals, not as members of a racial group. A school district should not be able to defeat a discrimination claim by showing that its policy did not harm enough Asian American children. Every family deserves admissions rules that judge their child on their own merit."
The post Supreme Court Takes Up Accusations of Race-Based Middle School Admissions appeared first on Reason Magazine.
NFL Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson’s family sued a California private school, alleging administrators failed to protect his sixth-grade son from repeated racial slurs, bullying, and physical attacks despite complaints from his parents.
The post REPORT: Son of NFL Legend Allegedly Tormented by Racist Bullies at Elite California Christian School appeared first on Breitbart.
Today, the Supreme Court decided to hear Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, a challenge to "facially neutral" discrimination against Asian applicants to selective public magnet schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. The admissions criteria are, on their face, racially neutral. But evidence indicates they were likely adopted for the purpose of reducing the percentage of Asian students in entering classes. More specifically, the case addresses the issue of "[w]hether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool." This issue is increasingly important since the Supreme Court banned most explicit racial discrimination in college admissions (and, by extension, school admissions) in SFFA v. Harvard (2023).
The lower court ruled that, even if there is evidence that a facially neutral admissions policy was enacted for the specific purpose of reducing the number of admitted students from a specific racial or ethnic group, it must still be upheld so long as the percentage of admitted students from that group is as high or higher than the percentage of applicants from that group.
The case is similar to (and based on) Fourth Circuit decision in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, which the Supreme Court refused to take in 2024 (though three conservative justices indicated they did want to hear it) [my wife Alison was one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in that case]. The present case is also from the Fourth Circuit. In my view (see here and here), the earlier Fourth Circuit decision is badly wrong and would - if the same approach were adopted by the Supreme Court - license all kinds of invidious, unconstitutional discrimination against Asians and other minorities:
Longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds that evidence of unconstitutional motivation for "facially neutral" policies shifts the burden of proof to the government to show that they would have enacted the same policy even in the absence of illicit motives. If they fail to prove that, then the policy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, which it would be unlikely to survive. In the TJ case, the Fourth Circuit majority opinion by Judge Robert Bruce King holds that even the most blatant discriminatory motivations do not trigger strict scrutiny so long as the group being targeted for discrimination by "facially neutral" means is still represented in proportion to its percentage of the relevant population (or more). Under the new admissions policy, Asians were still 54% of accepted applicants (as compared to 73% under the old one). Since that is still higher than the Asian percentage of the applicant pool, evidence of discriminatory intent becomes irrelevant….
I and others have previously compared today's anti-Asian discrimination in selective educational institutions to discrimination against Jewish applicants in earlier eras. Under the Fourth Circuit's reasoning, old-time policies using facially neutral means to reduce the percentage of Jewish students at elite universities would be perfectly legal, so long as Jewish applicants were admitted in the same [or higher] percentages as other groups. And that would be true no matter how extensive the evidence that the new policy was motivated by anti-Semitic prejudices, or that Jewish applicants had to have stronger academic records to be admitted than those required of gentiles.
The same point applies to all kinds of discrimination against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. So long as facially neutral means are used and the overall success rates of different groups are similar, this reasoning would allow even the most blatant discriminatorily motivated policies intended to reduce the participation of some groups for the benefit of others. There are many situations where members of some minority groups are "overrepresented" in educational institutions, government contracting, and elsewhere, relative to their percentage of the applicant pool or of the general population. Jews, Muslims, Asians, atheists, and Mormons are obvious examples of groups that fit that bill in a variety of educational and professional settings.
If a federal or state government adopted a seemingly neutral policy to try to reduce the percentage of blacks among professional football or basketball players, that too would pass muster, so long as the percentage of blacks in the the relevant pro sports leagues remained at least as high as the percentage of blacks among those seeking employment as players…. Progressives and others inclined to support today's decision should consider whether they are really willing to live with these troubling implications.
Since I wrote the above, the ideological valence of anti-Asian discrimination in education has shifted somewhat. For a long time, many left-wingers defended such discrimination (along with discrimination against white applicants) on the grounds that it is necessary to achieve "diversity" and compensate Blacks and Hispanics for the history of discrimination against those groups. Most conservatives condemned it because it violates principles of constitutional color-blindness.
During the second Trump Administration, however, right-wing nativists have increasingly defended discrimination against Asian immigrants on such ridiculous grounds as that they work too hard (thus making it too difficult for whites to compete with them), or even that they undermine the supposed value of racial "homogeneity." The political right actually has a long history of anti-Asian bigotry. But recently the problem has gotten much worse, after a period in which it was diminishing because conservatives (rightly) condemned such discrimination as a violation of color-blindness. The growing anti-Asian bigotry among right-wing nationalists is similar to and linked with their growing tendency towards anti-Semitism. Indeed, as many commentators have pointed out, the two prejudices are similar in many respects. Both Asians and Jews are condemned for supposedly working too hard, emphasizing academics too much relative to other activities, and supposedly dominating various business and intellectual fields.
The left-wing rationales for anti-Asian discrimination are little better than the right-wing ones. If you truly value diversity, it makes no sense to disfavor Asian applicants as a class. They add as much or more to diversity as any others. Indeed, as I have pointed out before, lumping all Asians in one category makes no sense, as this group includes a vast range of different ethnicities and cultures, covering more than half the world's population.
The compensatory justice rationale for anti-Asian discrimination collapses under the weight of the fact that many Asian groups have themselves faced extensive discrimination at various times in American history. Discrimination against Chinese and Japanese by federal and state governments has a long and sordid history, of which Japanese internment during World War II is just one particularly awful example.
It is important to recognize that "facially neutral" policies adopted for the specific purpose of excluding particular racial or ethnic groups differ from those that merely have an unintended disparate impact. The former are deliberate efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, whereas the latter are probably inevitable in a diverse society where groups differ from each other in various ways. For example, laws banning violent crime disproportionately affect any group which is, on average, younger than others, since young people (especially young men) have much higher crime rates than older ones.
The Constitution at least presumptively bars racial discrimination by government, whether motivated by left-wing objectives or right-wing ones. And such discrimination is forbidden even if cloaked in "facially neutral" garb. Otherwise, the government could easily discriminate against virtually any group simply by targeting some characteristic that correlates with group membership. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that and rule the right way in this case.
NOTE: The plaintiffs in this case are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group that was my wife's employer until recently. As noted above, she helped represent the plaintiffs in a previous case (also litigated by PLF), on which the lower court ruling in this case was based. She is not one of the attorneys in this case, and is no longer with PLF.
The post Supreme Court Will Hear Case on "Facially Neutral" Discrimination Against Asian Students in Admissions to Public Magnet Schools appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Britain’s biggest employers set bold diversity targets – but has anyone checked the maths? Actuary Peter Crowley runs the numbers and finds the arithmetic rather less accommodating than the slogans.
The post Diversity Targets: Has Anyone Done the Maths? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Brazilian speech therapists accuse the Central Administration of the Health System (ACSS) of barring them from the profession for not speaking “European Portuguese”. A petition has already reached the government.
The post “Glottophobia”: They speak Portuguese, but State does not let them work appeared first on Portugal Resident.
A temporary open-air pool erected outside Berlin’s iconic theater was supposed to represent the ultimate low-barrier urban oasis. Instead, a plan to allow only Black people to attend on Fridays has sparked outrage and accusations of racism.
Conceived as a free, non-commercial refuge requiring no identity checks — though reliant on a competitive online reservation system — the €300,000 project was introduced to the public as a shared summer meeting point. However, the organizers have implemented a protocol that excludes anyone non-Black one day this week, a clearly discriminatory practice.
Tensions arose over a specific event slated for Friday, Aug. 14. According to the official program, “During this period, the public bath is exclusively open to Black communities.”
Between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., general admission is suspended. According to Berliner Zeitung, the venue’s operators added a note asking that “this collective self-designation and the associated spaces be respected.”
The event is organized in partnership with “EOTO” (Each One Teach One), a publicly funded non-governmental organization dedicated to social and cultural programming for Black individuals. Because the NGO receives financial backing from both the German federal government and the state of Berlin, the decision to restrict access during those six hours — effectively excluding white visitors —has drawn criticism from those who feel it contradicts the venue’s core mission.
When the venue was launched, organizers praised it as a communal stand against urban commercialization, describing the initiative as a open “summer invitation.” Critics now argue that reserving public infrastructure for specific demographic groups breaks that initial promise.
Notably, advocates for the Black-only policy claim racism against White people must be implemented to provide a “safe space” for communities facing systemic racism.
The pop-up installation serves as the inaugural project for incoming artistic director Matthias Lilienthal. The pool has been pushed as a practical solution to the city’s seasonal pool shortages. Nothing is said of the fact that Berlin’s population has exploded, mostly due to mass immigration, leaving many outdoor pool areas overcrowded and sometimes even violent.
Lilienthal noted to news outlet ZDF: “Half of the indoor and outdoor swimming pools are closed, so we thought we were helping the Governing Mayor Kai Wegner.”
The venue operates on a substantial budget, benefiting from over €20 million in annual public taxpayer subsidies. The pool itself, measuring 25 meters in length and 1.30 meters in depth, can host a maximum capacity of 46 swimmers simultaneously, with the total budget designed to accommodate an estimated 20,000 visitors over the course of the swimming season.
This is the hardly the only controversy involving race in Germany, with a number of government programs excluding White people or funding organizations that exclude White people.
Just this year, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) vowed to cut off taxpayer money for left-wing activist groups after a Berlin organization that runs a coworking café that reportedly excludes White people received more than €662,000 in public funding.
The pattern has been seen across Germany. In August 2023, a German museum of industrial heritage in Dortmund was scolded for only allowing “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color” to enter the museum on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for the “That’s Colonial” exhibition. The Zollern Colliery museum argued it was creating a “safer space” intended to protect people of color from “further discrimination.”
The exclusive access was “an offer for BIPoC and black people to be able to withdraw and exchange ideas openly,” according to the museum. “For BIPoC, such safe spaces are rarely found in everyday life or in museum rooms.”
In May 2025, the German Evangelical Church (EKD) was accused of racism after banning White children from attending a workshop on being “courageous and strong” during its Church Congress in Hanover.
The “Become Courage and Strong” workshop was, again, only open to Black, indigenous, and children of color. However, while ethnic Germans and ethnic Europeans are indigenous to Germany and Europe, the designation did not apply to them, only indigenous people from other continents.
“This offer is aimed exclusively at Black, Indigenous, and children of color,” read the program website.
In January of this year, the German taxpayer-funded NGO “Black Sheep,” Schwarze Schafe in German, was offering a six-month intensive seminar designed specifically for White individuals to examine their “alleged privileges,” which is modeled after the concept of “Critical Whiteness.”
The organization, which identifies as a “post-migrant education initiative,” has received significant taxpayer funding from Germans and operates a reporting center for anti-Muslim racism.
White participants were expected to pay up to €2,290 for the course that runs from March to September.
What is clear is that anti-White racism is a massive and lucrative industry in Europe, with funding amounting to tens of millions of euros, and possibly more, for tax-payer projects and NGOs targeting Whites for exclusion, ridicule, and discrimination.
The post Blacks only: New taxpayer-funded Berlin pool will only accept Black people on Aug. 14 appeared first on Remix News.
Login