Can one cosponsor a racially discriminatory program without having any idea of its nature, even if this is implied by the program’s very name?
The University of Oklahoma and other universities are cosponsors of the Oklahoma Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, a program funded by the National Science Foundation that requires beneficiaries be members of certain minority groups: “African American, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.”
The Alliance’s goal is to “increase recruitment, enrollment, and retention of minority students in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] programs.”
Because of the program’s discriminatory criteria, the group Do No Harm has filed civil rights complaints against a dozen Oklahoma universities. Its leader, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, points out that the terms of the federally funded program “specifically exclude white students, students from middle eastern countries, and Asian students.… [B]ut it is illegal to engage in such discrimination based on race.”
When first asked about the complaint, the University of Oklahoma declined comment. But after The College Fix site reported on the matter, OU spokesman Jacob Guthrie said that the university’s site had been amended to reflect the fact that any student may apply, insisting also that the program “has never been restricted by race.”
It sure looks to me as if OU officials, like those of Ithaca College (subject to a similar federal complaint in October), are now suddenly worried about legal consequences.
Anyway, Do No Harm’s filing is already doing good, helping to re-establish that old liberal idea that governments must not discriminate on grounds of race.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with DALL‑E 2
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Federally Funded Racism”
Interesting SCOTUS case hit the docket: Brunson vs Adams, et al?
Could make it all moot.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22 – 380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110 – 95757954-00007015.pdf
Above is the link to the 18 page filing. I have never seen anything like this before. The history behind this case: Two brothers, Loy Brunson and Raland Brunson, both filed a court case in Utah. Loy’s case is still pending in Utah, but Raland’s case has now made it to the Supreme Court docket. As most of you probably know, getting a case docketed with SCOTUS (while it is still undecided in the 10th circuit court of appeals) is odd. How did it get here? Their case hinges on constitutional amendment violations of the right to due process. When an election has concerns of fraud, constitution allows for a 10 day investigation to look at the potential fraud questions and determine if fraud did or did not occur. This case is NOT one of election fraud, it is about congress and the senate NOT doing their oath of office and violating Amendment I to the constitution, Article VI of the constitution, the 14th Amendment of the constitution, section 3, the 5th and the 9th Amendment of the constitution, as well as a couple of Utah State Constitution articles. Most pertain to due process, the right to investigation, and not performing the 10 day investigation when questions of election fraud were presented to congress. It began in the state of Utah, then transferred to federal court when there were originally 3 defendants listed, Biden and Harris as well as Nancy Pelosi, and then 381 other defendents AND over 100 Jane/John Does to the defendent list. All are Federal Government members that are named so far.
The case was filed in early 2021, it was granted a motion to dismiss by the Federal Government, and it was refiled on Appeal to the 10th circuit court. In August 2022, they realized that they did not have to wait for a decision from the 10th Circuit of Appeals. The SCOTUS Rule 11 allowed them to bypass the 10th Circuit and go straight to the SCOTUS.
For more about Rule 11, look here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_11 What is rule 11? “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” Hmm. This case qualifies as imperative public importance to deviate from normal appellate practice and requires immediate determination?
Here is where it gets interesting. At this point, SCOTUS will usually dismiss back to the 10th circuit appeals waiting a decision from them. Essentially kicking the can down the road. But that did not happen. Appeals court is where most cases like this die out and get dismissed yet again.
What is outlined below is reported by the Brunson family on their website for this court case: (keep in mind Raland Brunson is acting Pro=Se, he does not have an attorney representing him).
September 23, 2022 the Petition for Writ of Certiorari Received.
September 28, 2022 Raland received A phone call from SCOTUS. The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland requesting for a revision of the Petition that would include more information on the lawsuit and wondering how soon they could get it.
October 17, 2022, Raland gets a 2nd phone call from SCOTUS
Clerk. She asks “how are you doing on your revision of the Writ with the additional information that we need?” Raland said “We’re working on it as we speak” She said “how soon can we get it?” Raland said “Right away”
October 20, 2022, the Revised Petition shipped to the SCOTUS.
October 24, 2022, Petition docketed. The clerk of the Court tells Raland that they have everything they need. The U.S. Attorneys have until Nov 23, 2022 to respond showing why the Supreme Court of the United States should not move on this case. This means that SCOTUS agreed that this case met the Rule 11 criteria or it would not be docketed. It would have been denied and punted back to Circuit 10 appeals court and await a decision.
So guess what happened on November 23rd?? The United States did not respond. Instead, this happened:
November 23, 2022: The Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice replaces the U.S. Attorneys. Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit, thus allowing the SCOTUS to move forward.
What does THAT decision mean? That means that the United States decided that SCOTUS justices can hear this case at any time, in conference, and if 4/9 or greater vote yes, it will be moved on to a hearing. Or, they can decide themselves to rule on the case if they choose. The waived right to respond essentially puts all control in the hands of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
If you want to follow along, the Brunson brothers have a page dedicated to this SCOTUS adventure. http://ralandbrunson.com/History/History.html
So the meat and potatoes of this case. We start here. Who are the “et al” in this case? 385 named people, and 100+ John/Jane Does. The 385 named people? Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, Michael Pence, and 382 other sitting house members and senators. Each of them are listed in the above docket. Have a gander to see if your state rep/senator is listed!
Why was this court case filed? The allegation is this: “for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.”. This is in reference to the 2020 election. When the case came before congress to investigate the allegation of fraud put forward by 100 members of congress, the other 380+ members voted no. The senate did nothing to stop the certification without the 10 day investigation period either.
The oath of office they broke? ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
The question at hand: How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don’t believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims from from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully manipulated the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a “rigged” election? No, it’s about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.
So lets back up just a little bit and remember what day this was. January 6th, 2021. Everyone knows “that day”. There were 100 members of congress set to request a 10 day investigation into possible election fraud. A few members spoke on the house floor, and then “January 6th” happened. When the congress reconvened late that night, they voted down the investigation into fraud that was introduced, they stated that no further election fraud concerns would be heard “in light of the days events”, they were pushing through to certify the election. And that is what they did.
What remedy are they seeking? They are asking that all 385 defendants be charged with Treason for failure to uphold the US Constitution, they be incarcerated for a period no less than 5 years, be fined no less than $10,000, they be removed from their government seat, and banned from ever holding a political position ever again.
One of the problems with utterly off-topic comments from generally friendly commentators is that these comments create a precedent for utterly off-topic comments from generally unfriendly commentators. A ‘blog should not typically be treated as if it were some baldy structured BBS.