Tennessee Is One Of Several States With Racial Preferences Embedded In State Board Selection Being Challenged After Recent Supreme Court Ruling
Image Credit: Gov. Bill Lee / Facebook
The Tennessee Conservative [By Kelly M. Jackson] –
This past summer the Supreme Court ruled in Students For Fair Admissions that racial preferences among college applicants violates the Constitution’s equal protections clause, and it is no longer an acceptable practice in academia.
As a refresher, SFFA filed a lawsuit against Harvard University asserting that their admissions process relied too heavily on racial preferences to be Constitutionally viable.
Harvard argued that their process complied with an earlier ruling from the Supreme Court, Grutter V Bolinger, which said that racial preferences were allowable so long as it served an interest to the state, and it was very narrowly applied and that “all factors that contribute to diversity are “meaningfully considered” alongside race.“
The new ruling which came down in June, changed that standard from “it’s ok so long as it doesn’t dictate the outcomes” to “any kind of racial consideration unfairly violates the law”.
Now it seems a new lawsuit is expanding that application to laws in several states where racial criteria is not only considered, but legally mandated as part of the selection process for state board appointments in the medical field.
According to reports, a group called Do No Harm announced plans to file a lawsuit against the state challenging their process for state board selections, specifically the State Board of Podiatry. The suit will seek to challenge Tennessee’s rules for appointments to over 70 state boards.
This includes, for example, the Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, which encompasses 6 members who have been chosen by the Governor since its creation in 1931. According to reports, two seats recently opened up, and the state law mandates that Governor Bill Lee must “strive to ensure” that “at least one (1) person serving on the board is a member of a racial minority.”
Since one of the current openings is currently being occupied by what the law considers a racial minority, in order for that position to be filled within the current law, the governor must operate outside and in conflict with Students For Fair Admissions and apply a racial test as he makes his considerations.
The only way the governor can justify the use of such a test and be constitutionally under the new ruling is to be able to prove compelling interests that are recognized by the court.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “One is remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The second is avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot.”
The legislation in Tennessee that compels the use of a race test was passed in 1988, and does not include any basis for it’s rationale, Do No Harm says the legislative record “contains no discussion on discrimination, statistics, or any other alleged governmental interest that formed the basis for the ultimate bill that imposed a racial quota for appointments to more than seventy boards.”
The assumption is that like many other diversity mandates, it is beneficial for those who make the appointments that those they appoint have the appearance of the “broader population”, but this doesn’t pass muster under the Supreme Court’s newly minted constitutional standard in case law.
This is just one of the lawsuits we are seeing that is a product of Students For Fair Admissions ruling that has the potential to systematically dismantle the entire DEI agenda one case at a time, creating a system that can truly be colorblind.
About the Author: Kelly Jackson is a recent escapee from corporate America, and a California refugee to Tennessee. Christ follower, Wife and Mom of three amazing teenagers. She has a BA in Comm from Point Loma Nazarene University, and has a background in law enforcement and human resources. Since the summer of 2020, she has spent any and all free time in the trenches with local grassroots orgs, including Mom’s for Liberty Williamson County and Tennessee Stands as a core member. Outspoken advocate for parents rights, medical freedom, and individual liberty. Kelly can be reached at kelly@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
Qualified applicants have complained for years that they were passed over for scholarships in favor of someone far less qualified. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Why does it always take a lawsuit to make people do what’s right?
One would have thought that our Republican Super Majorities along with our Republican governors would have taken care to eliminate this blatant racial discrimination long ago, but then again it’s not on the agenda of the Chamber of Commerce or big business lobbyists so why bother.
Save your money fellow conservatives, there will be places to spend it in the Republican primary next August.
Can we just stop with racial quotas? Hire for merit and merit alone!
Back in the early 1980s I was discriminated against because I was white and applied for a job in a City in northeast Tennessee . Bottom Line : I was a combat disabled Vietnam Veteran , a US Citizen , with a Masters Degree in City Management . I had also successfully completed a graduate degree internship with a City in northeast Tennessee for 6 months prior . When a job in the Planning Department opened at the completion of my internship I applied for the Planning Department job and was also endorsed by several city employees , including the Planning Director . Along comes a Black man , not a citizen of the US but a Canadian mind you , who didn’t even have a Master’s Degree in the field as I did , who applied and actually got the job over me . I sued the City and they had to pay me a years’ salary . It apparently was obvious to the jury that there was blatant discrimination because I was White and a Vietnam Veteran . Even though I beat them in court because of in essence ” reverse discrimination ” although that wasn’t the charge against a corrupt local government , unfortunately the city taxpayer was on the hook for the cost of the city’s discrimination and adherence to political correctness . There are many individuals who need to be held personally liable and accountable for bowing down to such anti-white discrimination . It didn’t help me , or the city , and the foreigner they hired ended up leaving or losing the job in short order anyway . I wonder if it was the doings of the Black Human Resources Director who not long afterward lost his job also ; or what ? No … that must have just been a coincidence !!! Ya think ?