Sidestepping the Ban on Race Quotas in Court, New York’s Deceptive ‘Abortion’ Law, and Other Commentary
Skirting Race-Quota Ban in Higher Education
The ban on race-based affirmative action by the Supreme Court was expected to have a significant impact on the demographics of elite universities. However, several top universities, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Penn, and Duke, have not seen much change in racial composition, as reported by Matthew Liley at City Journal.
These universities may be in violation of the law or may have misled the Supreme Court by stating that race-neutral methods were insufficient to achieve diversity goals. They may have maintained their racial demographics by using “diversity targets” that award bonus points based on socioeconomic factors. Another possibility is that their admissions officers are disregarding the ruling and still considering race, despite implementing supposedly race-neutral admissions policies.
New York’s Deceptive ‘Abortion’ Law
New York state Democrats are utilizing the contentious issue of abortion to promote progressive policies, as highlighted by James Lynch in National Review.
Proposal 1, also known as the New York Equal Rights Amendment, would introduce a broad expansion of the state constitution’s equal-protection clause with vague language around race, national origin, and gender. This proposal could lead to legal battles that undermine parental rights, allow minors to receive medical treatments without parental consent, enable males to compete in female sports, weaken immigration enforcement, and potentially provide welfare benefits to illegal immigrants.
The proposal essentially aims to entrench extreme left-wing ideology into the state constitution.
Israeli Left’s Approval of Strikes on Hezbollah
The Israeli left is showing support for actions against Iran-sponsored terrorism, a sentiment echoed by Tunku Varadarajan in The Wall Street Journal.
For example, Gilad Kariv, who founded a caucus in the Knesset for Renewing the Negotiations and Promoting the Two-State Solution, remains committed to a two-state solution despite recent events. He sees a two-state solution as essential for maintaining Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and views the elimination of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah as a necessary step towards achieving peace.
Biased Debate Moderators
The choice of moderators for the recent debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz has raised concerns about bias, as pointed out by Paul Bedard in The Washington Examiner.
An analysis by Media Research Center’s NewsBusters found that CBS coverage has been largely pro-Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris while being critical of Vance and former President Trump. The moderators, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, have a history of anti-Trump bias, raising concerns about fairness.
Subsidizing Hurricane Risk-Takers
While FEMA provides aid to flood survivors, the National Flood Insurance Program is criticized for incentivizing people to live in high-risk areas, as noted by Jack Nicastro in Reason.
NFIP-subsidized insurance keeps rates artificially low, discouraging homeowners from understanding the true risk of living in flood zones. The solution proposed is to stop subsidizing NFIP and allow insurance companies to set rates based on the actual risk of extreme weather events like hurricanes.
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
