Clarence Thomas Drops the Hammer in Supreme Court—He Questions the Term ‘Diversity’ with Startling Impact

As reported recently, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over a case that could totally transform American colleges.

For decades, institutions of higher learning have prioritized admissions based on race.

Affirmative action is a policy that gives certain applicants special privilege because they are a person of color.

This from thepatriotjournal.com.

This policy has discriminated against students who otherwise would have gotten into college. Lawsuits against this practice have finally reached the highest court.

One advocate for affirmative action defended it before Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, claiming it ensured “diversity.” But when he defined diversity for Justice Thomas, the justice gave a withering rebuke.

North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Y. Park sought to convince the court of the value of affirmative action, claiming that its use resulted in “diverse” groups of people performing at a higher level…

Thomas scrutinized what the state considers “diversity,” noting that the word “seems to mean everything for everyone.”

He asked York for a specific definition and to explain how what he described benefited the University of North Carolina…

Thomas wasn’t accepting the answers to his questions, and delivered a brutal line on the argument.

He said:

Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too.

What?

Did Justice Thomas just reject the often-used word “diversity,” which [democrats communists] throw around to get their way?

The justice claimed that the word ‘diversity’ often means “everything to everyone” and demanded the Solicitor General defend it.

The best Park could come up with was the claim that a “diverse” group of people provide the “most efficient decisions.”
Whatever that means. It was a pretty weak argument and the justice wasn’t buying it for a minute.

But his response was absolutely crushing to affirmative action.

He said similar arguments were made to defend segregation, the practice of separating black and white citizens.

BINGO.

The use of affirmative action is not unlike segregation, which is why Thomas was bold enough to bring it up.

Affirmative action—while claiming to help people of color—actually separates Americans on the basis of race or social status.

It assigns value to a person because of their ethnicity or skin color–destroying anything remotely related to equality among Americans.

Yet, for years, colleges have exploited affirmative action, because it puts them on the government’s good side. A college with a high number of students of color can brag about how “diverse” it is—without having to prove if that is achieving anything good.

The normally quiet Justice Thomas just struck a killing blow against this agenda. And it could end very soon.

Final thoughts: This is Justice Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court. And despite the three blathering radical liberals and a compromised John Roberts who sit on the Court with him, we can expect to see much Originalist Constitutional Good come about over the next several years from the Thomas Court.

God speed to Justice Clarence Thomas.