College students support diversity quotas in college admissions and hiring employees, but not when it comes to football

Share:

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

GAINESVILLE, FL– According to reports, Campus Reform reporter Ophelie Jacobson, spoke with several students at the University of Florida about diversity quotas, which an overwhelming amount seemed to support those quotas in college admissions or when hiring for a workplace, but their tune changed when asked if they support diversity quotas in college football. 

When Jacobson asked students if they support diversity quotas in hiring decisions and in college admissions processes, most of the students responded with a resounding yes. One student said:

“As a first generation college student from a Hispanic household, it’s very important.”

Another student responded by saying:

“I think it’s an absolute necessity.”

Another student added:

“Absolutely, there should be more diversity in every single field.”

Jacobson then asked students if they support these same diversity quotas for sports teams. Most of the students said they would not support these quotas in sports. One student said:

“We want to win no matter what you are.”

Another student stated:

“I don’t think we should. College sports is about getting the best players for your team, and I don’t think we should focus on which race or ethnicity to get.”

Another student added:

“It doesn’t make much sense … it should be based on skill.”

Jacobson then showed the students what the Florida Gators’ offensive lineup would look like if the team implemented diversity quotas based on student population demographics. After seeing that, students stood firm and stated they didn’t think it would be fair to implement the quota for the team.

Many students stressed that it is important to prioritize “skill” above all else when you want to “win.” One student said:

“No, I think it should be skill-based.”

Another student stated:

“Same thing, we want to win, no matter, like what you are.”

Another student added:

“I feel like it should be based off talent, [sports] is something that’s a little bit different.”

One student replied by saying:

“With sports, it’s definitely more, like, more emphasis placed on ability.”

Another student echoed:

“Sports is different than college. Sports is not the same, I mean, talent is talent is talent is talent.”

One student said:

“A diversity quota for any sports team — it doesn’t make much sense. It should be based on skill.”

Another student suggested the novel idea to “just let the skill shine and whoever’s the best player deserves to be on the team.”

Adhering to a diversity quota in the case of the Florida Gators’ offensive lineup would mean that several black players would have to be removed in order to make room for Asian and white football players.

Students did not find this fair, with one student saying:

“We’d probably be losing because we recruit, like based on skill and if we recruited based on diversity then we’d probably be worse.”

Another student added:

“I see nothing wrong with the current roster right now. I think it’s perfectly fine. If they’re the best players fit for the job, then they deserve the spot.”

When Jacobson then asked the students if looking at this example of diversity quotas made them change their mind about them being applied to the workplace or college admissions, several students admitted that it did. Watch below:

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Judge slaps down Biden’s USDA race-based loan forgiveness program: Illegal and discriminatory

July 15th, 2021

MEMPHIS, TN- The Equal Protection clause in the United States Constitution is of such importance that it is indeed mentioned twice within the Amendments, being found in the Fifth Amendment, as well as in the Fourteenth.

The Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to practice equal protection, while the Fourteenth Amendment extended that same protection guarantee to the states.

The Biden administration is currently facing an equal protection case stemming from its discriminatory practice of providing loan forgiveness programs under “COVID relief” only to non-white farmers,” the Epoch Times reports.

A federal district court judge in Tennessee ruled in favor of a Tennessee farmer who filed suit against the Biden administration for the loan-forgiveness program, with the plaintiff arguing the administration’s policy was unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

U.S. District Court Judge S. Thomas Anderson, assigned to the Western District of Tennessee, ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must halt its distribution of funds through the program until the case is fully resolved. The scheme, otherwise known as Section 1005 was created under the American Rescue Plan approved earlier this year by Congress.

While Anderson acknowledged the importance of eliminating the stain of prior racial discrimination, such must be able to withstand Constitutional muster.

“However important the goal of eliminating the vestiges of prior race discrimination, and it is important, the government’s efforts cannot withstand strict scrutiny. Therefore, Plaintiff has shown a likeliness of success on the merits at trial,” he wrote finding in favor of farmer Robert Holman.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation represented Holman.

In explaining why he issued an injunction against the program, Anderson noted that despite the fact there isn’t a cap on the amount of loan money able to be granted by the USDA, the program has already granted some $3.8 billion, and funds may be depleted prior to the case being resolved.

Continuing his explanation, Anderson ruled that Holman “has shown a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on his claim” that Biden’s scheme violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.”

He continued, “Absent action by the Court, socially disadvantaged farmers will obtain debt relief, while Plaintiff will suffer the irreparable harm of being excluded from that program solely on the basis of his race.”

While historically the United States has operated under the premise of “equality of opportunity,” at least in our recent history, Biden and other leftists have decided that equity—equality of outcomes is more important. By the very nature of that premise, racism in one form or another is necessary.

The farm loan program was designed with equity in mind, part of Biden’s plan to promote “equity,” and it would pay off “the loans of black, Hispanic, American Indian, Native Alaskan and Hawaiian farmers” and award them “an additional 20 percent of the value as a cash payment,” [reparations] the Southeastern Legal Foundation noted.

The Section 1005 program pays up to 120 percent of a direct or guaranteed farm loan for black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacific Islander farmers, according to the USDA’s website.

After the judge’s order, the USDA pushed back on it, posting on their website that the “law provides USDA direction to deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who hold a qualifying farm loan.”

The USDA advised borrowers to continue to submit paperwork and said the agency “will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress at the earliest opportunity, depending on the ongoing litigation.”

Lawyers for the USDA admitted that Congress had put the program in place in order to resolve alleged discrimination in USDA loan programs. They argued that offering loans to nonwhite people under the program would remedy those effects.

The lawyers argued that Congress had looked at the “evidence” that discriminatory loan practices at the USDA had negatively impacted minority farmers prior to the pandemic, which is why the provision was deemed to be necessary.

This is the second setback for the program, after a prior ruling made by a Wisconsin federal judge offered a similar argument as Anderson’s.

“Plaintiffs are excluded from the program based on their race and are this experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government,” wrote Wisconsin U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in an opinion last month, adding that plaintiffs “have established a strong likelihood that Section 1005 of the ARPA is unconstitutional.”

Anderson’s ruling doubled down on Griesbach’s order since unlike Griesbach’s order whereby he issued a temporary restraining order, Anderson issued an injunction.

The Biden administration has had its fair share of “racist” problems, one which we reported on a while back. In case you missed it, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

The following contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

WASHINGTON, DC- If the most far-left, anti-American, neo-Marxist radical had put together a dream team of fellow radicals to populate a presidential administration, they would have had to go a long way to beat the group of unhinged lunatics Joe Biden has assembled.

For someone who promised to “bring the country together” and who was advertised as a “moderate,” Biden has out-Marxed Marx.

Take Kristen Clarke, who Biden nominated to head the civil rights division at the Department of Justice. She is a far-left lunatic who has a history of black nationalism and has sympathies for racism, as well as anti-Semitism.

According to the North State Journal, Clarke once argued that the human brain was structured in such a way that black people are “superior” to white people, and that “human mental processes” in the brain have chemicals which give one race (blacks) “superior physical and mental abilities” and “spiritual abilities.”

Clarke claims that those comments were a sort of “parody” in which she was attempting to mock a book called “The Bell Curve.” “What I was seeking to do was to hold up a mirror,” she said. “Put one racist theory alongside another.” Clarke wrote this while writing for the Harvard University newspaper. 

Well, that story didn’t appear to abide with the Harvard Crimson, the campus paper. The editors of that paper called on Clarke to retract her claims in an editorial entitled, “Clarke Should Retract Statements.” That editorial argued that there was “little evidence of irony in the letter and that Clarke’s subsequent statements about the piece hardly amount to a disavowal of its contents,” the Crimson wrote.

Did you say anti-Semite? Clarke, while a student at Harvard University invited a man named Anthony Martin, a professor at Wellesley College at the time to speak at Harvard.

Clarke’s assigned textbook was entitled “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” which sought to blame Jews for the slave trade. Clarke also wrote “The Jewish Onslaught” published by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a famed anti-Semite.

At the same time, Clarke was writing about black supremacy, in which she called Martin an “intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”

Clarke now claims that she “denounces anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it shows up.”

That was after 2019 apparently, when she signed a letter supporting Farrakhan supporter and Women’s March co-founder Tamika Mallory, who had “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claiming that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade,” as reported in Tablet.

Hey, it was all the way back two years ago when she said that.

If those were her only issues, that would probably be enough. But just like Ron Popeil, the famous “Vega-Matic” huckster, “Wait! There’s more!”

According to The Washington Free Beacon, Clarke was listed on the masthead of a scholarly journal with her name prominently displayed along with an anti-Semitic writer.

That is bad enough, however Clarke had claimed under oath that she had never collaborated with Amiri Baraka, a Marxist and anti-Semitic black nationalist who had accused Israel in 2002 of having advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Clarke and Baraka appeared together on the masthead of the journal Souls at least eight times over two years.

Speaking to Israel’s alleged knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, Baraka wrote:

“Who knew the World Trade center was gonna get bombed/Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers/To stay home that day/Thy did Sharon stay away?/Who? Who? Who?” he wrote in a “poem” called “Who Blew Up America?”

In a 2004 NPR interview, Baraka said he had no regrets in writing the above, and also called then-Newark mayor Cory Booker “backward.” He also complained that “merely getting rid of the white folks in Newark” wasn’t sufficient to address the goals of black nationalists.

During Clarke’s April 14 Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Clarke told senators she had never worked with Baraka. Sen Mike Lee (R-Utah) questioned Clarke about Baraka and an article he had written comparing police officers and judges to the Ku Klux Klan.

The article in fact is called “Mumia, Lynch Law and Imperialism.” “Mumia” is well known to police officers, having been convicted of murder in the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer in 1981.

He is a martyr to far-left neo-Marxists who have made the claim that he is innocent and have been pushing for his release, despite the fact he was witnessed executing the officer. He is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole.

During testimony, Lee asked Clarke whether she served “on the editorial staff of a journal with Amiri Baraka,” to which she answered “no.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

The Free Beacon reviewed eight editions of the journal, “Souls, A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society” on Taylor & Francis, which publishes scholarly journals. The Beacon said the editions were published quarterly in 1999 and 2000. Each edition showed Clarke on the masthead as an assistant editor, with Baraka listed as contributing editor.

Moreover, Clarke was also caught promoting that same essay:

“President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division circulated an essay from self-proclaimed Marxist poet Amiri Baraka defending cop killer Mumia-Abu-Jamal and referring to police officers as members of the Ku Klux Klan, according to an email from her days at Columbia University.

Kristen Clarke forwarded the Baraka essay in an email on June 25, 1999, to her mentor, the late historian Manning Marable.

She suggested that the essay, entitled “Mumia, ‘Lynch Law’ & Imperialism” be placed in a magazine Marable edited and used for a panel on the death penalty.

‘Here is a piece for the magazine & the panel 3 Race and The Death Penalty,’ Clarke wrote to Barable.

How much of a racist, anti-Semite was Clarke’s mentor, Baraka? Pretty bad, as you’ll see:

“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured…So come for the rent, jewboys, or come ask me for a book, or sit in the courts handing down your judgments still I got something for you, gonna give it to my brothers, so they’ll know what your whole story is, then one day, jewboys, we all, even my wig wearing mother gonna put it on you all at once.”

Baraka later explained in “Confessions of a former Anti-Semite” that these lines meant “Jews had stolen black secrets and then said that Hitler disliked Jews because he could smell the contact with black on them.”

He continued:

“Atheist Jews double-crossers stole our secrets crossed the white desert to spill them. The fag’s death they gave us on a cross…they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

“The empty jew betrays us, as he does hanging stupidly from a cross, in an oven, the pantomime of our torture, so clearly, cinemascope the Jews do it…the little arty bastards talking arithmetic they sucked from the arab’s head. Suck your pricks. The best is yet to come. On how we beat you and killed you.”

Oh, he also hated white people:

“We are all beautiful (except white people, they are full of , and made of shit),” he wrote. “Come up, black dada/nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape/their fathers. Cut the mothers throats,” he wrote.

These are the type of people someone who is supposed to head the “civil rights” division of the Department of Justice views as a mentor.

Imagine if the script were flipped, the races were changed, and the nominee was put up by a Republican. CNN, MSNBC and the alphabet networks would be covering it 24/7.

In the case of Biden, it’s just another radical nominee put up by an out-of-touch demented old man.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

 

 

 

Share:
Related Posts