This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled race-based admissions standards for colleges are unconstitutional, an organization in Wisconsin has decided the other race-based programs in that state need to go.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has announced a new legislative roadmap that sets a path toward "colorblind" policies in that state – and across America.
"The Constitution demands equal treatment for all," said Rick Esenberg, WILL general counsel. "Today represents just the first step – our work provides not only a model for Wisconsin but for the entire country."
"Too many laws and programs exclude or prioritize citizens based on race," noted Dan Lennington, deputy counsel for the organization. "This must end. The ‘Equality for All Agenda’ provides a roadmap for legislators to ensure that our laws are colorblind and that no citizen’s race is a disadvantage."
The institute said its campaign calls for the repeal of all race-based laws and programs.
It comes in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found race-based programs unacceptable.
WILL said among its targets will be two scholarships maintained by Wisconsin "that discriminate based on race. whites, Middle Eastern students, and most Asian students may not receive a scholarship because of their race."
And then there are loans for certain teachers that are based on race.
The group said there's also a UW faculty initiative that discriminates "based on race when hiring professors."
And several programs by the state offer help to businesses, but only if the owner is of a "preferred race."
WILL said, "As the Wall Street Journal reported, the court’s decision will likely force significant change in corporate America. Court’s broad language implicates practices outside the bounds of the Constitution—namely, private affirmative action programs or 'diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
"Harvard, after all, is a private college and its program was evaluated under the law governing programs receiving federal financial assistance (Title VI). The court concluded that this statute contains the same protections against discrimination as the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and that Harvard’s use of race in admitting students was unlawful under that statute."
It puts into doubt the validity of other programs that apply to private businesses, too.
