Connect with us

Politics

Jamele Hill Says Asians Are “Carrying The Water For White Supremacy” For Celebrating SCOTUS Rulings

Published

1 year ago

on

Jemele Hill, former ESPN employee and current contributing writer for The Atlantic, took to social media to denounce the Supreme Court’s overturning race-based affirmative action policies by academic institutions toward their student body. She did so by proclaiming that the Supreme Court’s racism was masked by its supposed concern for Asian Americans and that therefore those Asian Americans celebrating the decision were “gladly” carrying “the water for white supremacy and stabbed the folks in the back whose people fought diligently for Asian American rights in America.”

Hill further claimed that she knew better than other people what Martin Luther King Junior’s speech when he dreamt of an America where “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” really meant. She wrote “We do not live in a race blind society and we never have. If we want to live in one, that means dismantling the systems of oppression, not creating new barriers and obstacles. And by the way, that is what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech was about.”

Hill also asserted that “Some Asian Americans believe affirmative action hurts them when the data shows the opposite. They also have benefited from it.”

 

free hat

She further explained that “they [Asian Americans] typically have good test scores, the thinning is that this ruling means they wouldn’t have to worry about someone with lower test scores getting in over them. But based on the research, even if colleges went by purely test scores, 20 percent of them still aren’t getting in.”

As observed by The Post Millennial ” [t]he Supreme Court decision [that overturned affirmative action] used data from Harvard admissions rates showing that Asian Americans were much less likely than African Americans to be accepted when they had similar decile rankings.”

Indeed the Supreme Court majority decision noted that “[d]uring the years at issue in this litigation, underrepresented minority students were “more likely to score [highly] on their personal ratings than their white and Asian American peers,” but were more likely to be “rated lower by UNC readers on their academic program, academic performance, . . . extracurricular activities,” and essays.”

The decision further highlighted in a footnote that “[a]ccording to SFFA’s expert, over 80% of all black applicants in the top academic decile were admitted to UNC, while under 70% of white and Asian applicants in that decile were admitted…In the second highest academic decile, the disparity is even starker: 83% of black applicants were admitted, while 58% of white applicants and 47% of Asian applicants were admitted….And in the third highest decile, 77% of black applicants were admitted, compared to 48% of white applicants and 34% of Asian applicants…The dissent does not dispute the accuracy of these figures.”

Despite this debunking by the Supreme Court and that the basis of their judgement was that such policies were illegal because they were race-based, Hill and others have carried on their assertions of the benign nature of those policies. Even in Congress, Representatives like Jamaal Bowman ranted against the decision for “barring institutions of higher education from using race-conscious admissions policies.”



Related Topics: