The U.S. Supreme Court rules 9-0 in a landmark decision that undercut all DEI-based discrimination, sending Oregon's policies into question. The US Supreme Court ruled that a St. Louis police sergeant can sue over a job transfer she claims was discriminatory lays the foundation for legal action against employers who push discrimination against white people in job hiring, work assignment and promotion. Those “diversity-preferred” job postings, the practice of passing over whites for promotions, discriminatory job transfers, pushing unfair diversity trainings, etc., all of these are now legally actionable.

Lawyers tried to argue that there is ‘good discrimination’ and ‘bad discrimination’, that white people should be purposely disadvantaged to pave the way for diversity. The lawyers stated that the decision will complicate DEI programs and limit their ability to discriminate against white men.

The Supreme Court discredited these claims, re-asserting that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The court also established a relatively ‘low standard’ for bringing discrimination cases. The victim need not suffer ‘actual harm.’ An employee only must show “some harm” under the terms of their employment, and that harm need not be “material, substantial or serious.” The decision makes it much easier for workers to sue over discriminatory practices. This is a big win for equality if lawyers don't run wild.

Oregon has been chipping away at equality for several decades replacing it with equity for underserved and underprivileged. Every bill and every program passed, no matter how equality driven it is, leadership is obsessed with releasing statements that ties the outcomes to filling gaps for the underserved, underprivileged. That has been seen anywhere from safety issues, availability of healthcare, high-speed internet access, education agendas teaching white privilege, to jobs and affordable housing.

It has been nearly a year since the Supreme Court ruled on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and University of North Carolina, concluding that these colleges including many private colleges in Oregon, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, notes that "the trial records reveal that both schools routinely discriminate on the basis of race when choosing new students -- exactly what the law forbids."

A Heritage Foundation study measured how many Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) “instructors” there are at major public state universities. The study reported that DEI staff and departments urge students to embrace radical leftwing ideologies, including that people should be treated differently due to their race. The study showed DEI bureaucracies are better understood as an academic version of a political commissariat that articulates and enforces an ideological orthodoxy on campus.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

As the Supreme Court continues to verify, the orthodoxy tends to make many groups of people feel unwelcome, promotes division, and encourages conformity rather than diversity on various social and political issues. Heritage analysts found that surveys of students reported the worse campus climates they have measured. Oregon’s universities averaged 4.6 exclusive DEI personnel for every 100 faculty members.

ORS 342.437, Minority Teacher Act, established diversity goals for Oregon’s educator workforce for the number of minority teachers, including administrators, employed by school and education service districts to be approximately proportionate to the number of minority students enrolled in the state's schools. In addition, HB 4031 added that the Higher Education Coordinating Commission may award scholarships of $10,000 to culturally and linguistically diverse teacher candidates to use at approved educator preparation providers for the purpose of advancing the goal to employ diverse educators in a percentage of diverse students. These state educator preparation providers are instructed to train on CRT and sexual orientation. Does such a policy based on race and color violate the court's ruling?

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears Oregon needs a serious look at who they are really discriminating against.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-04-26 11:35:04

Last Update: 2024-04-26 19:30:01