"The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color."--Chief Justice John Roberts
Students today are taught to see the world in terms of groups, with some groups identified as virtuous and innocent, and others has dominated by evil. The idea of personal sin, the Judeo-Christian understanding of individual accountability, is virtually gone, meaning a person can feel virtuous without personally being virtuous.
That idea is being replaced by the theory of group responsibility, rather than personal sin. That ideology’s basic premise is that the world is divided into oppressors, all of whom deserve condemnation, and groups of oppressed, all of whom deserve compensation. Exactly why this is so, you had better not ask. Most neo-liberals care more about ideology than intellectual standards.
That is a return to the primitive concept of justice, a return to the mark of barbarianism. In such an ideological classroom, every conclusion is given in advance, and practices that might otherwise give pause are sacralized by the imaginary imperatives of social justice.
When uttering the phrase diversity is our strength the neo-ideologues generally refuse to define precisely what they mean by diversity. Dividing individuals into racial and ethnic blocks and awarding benefits are penalties based on those immutable differences. It is a recipe for divisiveness. Policies that support those practices are actually a destroyer of unity.
The bureaucrats who developed racial categories for governmental use specifically warned that the categories are not sound enough; are imprecise, overboard, arbitrary, undefined, under-inclusive, incoherent, based on irrational stereotypes, constantly and evolving. They are determined not by some objective criteria but on the subjective and personal beliefs of each individual and should not be used to determine benefits or access to government programs. The history of the struggle with race explains why the demand for colorblind mediocracy matters. It is also fully consistent with our country's constitutional ethos(1).
Nevertheless, the burgeoning acceptance of color blindness was expressly rejected both during the BObama and corrupt biden regimes(2).
"I will... end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public life. We will forge a society that is color blind and merit-based."-- Donald Trump
1. Mapp v. Gideon would seem to imply the Constitutional protection of individual rights, and Griswold that the people retain those rights. The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th was intended to require the states to protect basic rights, including the individual’s right to act for his personal security.
2. In 2024, National Science Foundation grants went to 27% of specific dei objectives. Yet the federal courts found that that practice, presuming the persons identified with certain racial and ethnic groups were socially and economically disadvantaged and thus eligible for preferences, was illegal. The group classifications were irrational, imprecise, stereotyped, lacked both a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, not regularly reviewed and violated the 5th amendments equal protection guarantee.
Supplemental Info:
https://thefederalist.com/2025..../07/07/supreme-court
https://www.americanthinker.co....m/articles/2025/07/t
https://thefederalist.com/2025..../07/09/how-trumps-bi
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-de....ath-of-the-public-li
