NewNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Editor’s note: The following column was first published in City diary And in the author’s substitute.
Several years ago, author Christopher Caldwell changed the conversation with his book “The Era of Rights.” The book argued that the civil rights regime established in the 1960s marked a fundamental deviation of the constitutional tradition of the United States. Although it was launched with the noble intention to stop racial discrimination, Caldwell argued, the Civil Rights Law and the desk that US federals generated with great importance and became IDE through institutions and interesting.
In the decades that followed, the right response was marked by ambivalence. Some libertarians asked to repeal the civil rights law, but as many libertarian proposals, this was never a political possibility, given the broad public support of the Law. The right of the establishment, meanwhile, largely suppressed their private doubts. Republicans voted repeatedly to expand the civil rights regime, embodying even more doubtful concepts such as disparate impacts in the law.
Now, all this has changed. After setting up a successful struggle against Dei, political law has come to accept that it must be a civil rights regime, it should be one of its own creations. Instead of continuing to defer to the leftist interpretations of the Civil Rights Law, the right can now advance in a framework based on colorblind equality, not the racist ideology.
Harvard deserves war with Trump, or the government is crossing? The campus reacts to the financing battle
The first battlefield is higher education. The Trump administration has set its gaze at the Ivy League universities, which have not only advanced the ideologies of the racialism of the left, but made them an administrative policy.
Many Ivy League presidents see themselves as heirs of the civil rights movement. In fact, they are among the most active practitioners of racial discrimination, stereotypes and segregation in the United States today. Protected by a virtuous public image, elite universities have institutionalized discrimination against disadvantaged racial groups, implemented policies based on rewards and racial penalties, the contracted and promoted faculty of Meralls, and segment the perseveres of oversized perseveres, and graduation ceremonies.
The Trump administration has broken this illusion. In a series of letters to the presidents of the Ivy League, he has threatened to retain billions in federal funds, citing violations of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 and other non -discrimination policies.
The argument is simple: racial discrimination is incorrect if it is directed to whites, Asians and Jews or blacks and Hispanics. Any institution that continues to discriminate according to the breed is intelligible for federal support.
Many Ivy League presidents see themselves as heirs of the civil rights movement. In fact, they are among the most active practitioners of racial discrimination, stereotypes and segregation in the United States today.
Critics have called this approach “Armando the Civil Rights Law.” But civil rights laws have always been the preservatives of arms have finally decided to exercise it.
Harvard is suffered for refusing to meet Trump’s administrative demands in the midst of anti -Semitism struggle
Ivy League presidents are struggling to understand and respond to the moment. The interim president of the University of Columbia, Katrina Armstrong, Caht in the crossfire between the State and the Academy, admitted Trump’s demands, and quickly lost his position. The president of Princeton, Christopher Eishgruber, who has presided over one of the most discriminatory academic institutions in Raciyly, has tried to present himself as a hero who resists President Donald Trump.
I have been involved in a debate in the arm with Eishgruber through our appearances in the Podcast of the New York Times, the door invoked my name as an enemy and what I responded in a child.
After listening carefully to his position, I have concluded that he understands Neith the argument against him or, frankly, his. Eistruber claims to be defending the tradition of civil rights of the noble American cause. Actually, he is defending the policies of his university or racialist discrimination.
Click here for more Fox News opinion
Eishgruber argues that federal intervention is illegitimate, but has no land to defend. Consider the historical precedent: if pressed, I am sure that Eishgruber is conception that President Eisenhower was right when demanding disaggregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, and displaying the 101A Airborne division to enforce it. What grass does not achieve is that, in this analogy, Princeton is Little Rock Central High School, and he is Governor Orval Faubus. Princeton has systematically discriminated on the basis of the race and has repeatedly violated the principle of colorblind equality, the central ideal of the Civil Rights Law.
Whatever happens in the coming months, the terms of this debate have now changed. The president has assured that the civil rights regime is no longer a single -week lever to discriminate against the “oppressors” groups and embed the left -wing ideologies in elite institutions.
He now has the winning argument. Americans support a “colorblind society” on a “conscious society of the race” by a margin of more than three to one. Only in leftists such as California and Washington, voters have constantly approved voting initiatives that show that they reject racial discrimination in university administration. To the extent that we can promote this debate forward, the public will see more and more figures such as Eistruber as the villains of the racial history of the United States.
Click here to get the Fox News application
The important thing for the Trump administration is not flashing. You must use all the tools at your disposal to ensure that the United States elite universities adhere to the principle of colorblind equality. If they resist, the president should not hesitate to cut the funds until they comply.
Universities are free to operate as independent institutions and reject federal money, but if they choose to accept billions in taxpayers, they must follow the law.
Welcome to the new right -wing civil rights regime.
Click here to read more from Christopher F. Rufo
