Georgetown Hires Anthony Fauci as 'Distinguished Professor'





Guest host Amber Athey discusses a protest in Montgomery County, Maryland, where parents of diverse backgrounds objected to sexually explicit content and LGBTQ activist ideas in school curricula. Athey criticizes the school board for not allowing parents to opt out and points out that taxpayer dollars support objectionable material. She expresses frustration with media bias, as some headlines accused the parents of white supremacy despite their diverse composition. Athey clarifies that the opposition is about protecting children from inappropriate content rather than being anti-LGBT or anti-trans. She criticizes the Biden administration for suppressing parents’ First Amendment rights through the DOJ.

Athey emphasizes the importance of parents teaching children about sensitive topics and protecting them from adult-oriented content. She highlights the significance of the traditional family structure, citing a video of a girl expressing her desire for a father. Athey criticizes attempts to deny the importance of both a mother and a father in raising children.

Shifting to Georgetown University, Athey expresses disappointment with the hiring of Dr. Anthony Fauci, questioning his qualifications and accusing him of dishonesty regarding COVID-19 matters. She argues that Fauci’s appointment contradicts Georgetown’s principles of truth-seeking and caring for the whole person. Athey shares personal experiences of conservative silencing and anti-Catholic bias at Georgetown. She mentions the university’s guidance on gender dysphoria, which she believes conflicts with Catholic teachings.

Lastly, Athey discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action policies. She argues against treating individuals differently based on race and celebrates the victory for conservatives. Athey defends Justice Clarence Thomas against character assassination attempts related to affirmative action, highlighting his accomplishments and intelligence.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Welcome to the Liz Wheeler Show. I’m Amber Athene for Liz today. Thank you so much for tuning in. There is an incredible protest that took place in Montgomery County, Maryland last week of school board parents. And this was unlike any other school board protests that we had seen because of the coalition of parents that came together against the idea of having sexually explicit content in their kids’ schools or having their kids being taught LGBTQ activist ideas in the classroom. This group of parents included Christians shins, Muslims first and second-generation immigrants. It was an incredibly diverse crowd full of people who say that these things that are being taught in schools are inconsistent with their values and their religious principles, and that their kids shouldn’t be subjected to it. In Montgomery County, the school curriculum teaches kids all kinds of nonsense regarding sexually explicit content and the teaching of gay sex and transgender radical gender ideology. 

And these parents said that the school was not even allowing them to opt out of the content. I mean, typically when these schools do have this objectionable content, parents are at least allowed to send in a permission slip saying that their, that their kids will or will not participate. And that was not the case in Maryland. And Montgomery County, for those who are not familiar, is one of the wealthiest counties, both in Maryland and actually across the entire country. It’s very similar to Fairfax or Loudoun County. Those Virginia counties that saw school word parents go out ahead of the Virginia government gubernatorial election in 2019. And these parents clearly are furious that they’re taxpayer dollars of which they are paying a ton, are going towards this particular material. And naturally, the media didn’t know what to do with this because they’re used to, you know, slandering, school board parents as white nationalists or Christian fascists. 

And in this case there were a bunch of brown people there. And yet they still, in some headlines, were trying to accuse these people of having internalized white supremacy or white nationalist ideas. But obviously there is nothing white nationalist about opposing curriculum that urges three-year-olds. This is quotes from the actual curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland to find words like intersex, drag, queen leather, and underwear in a word list. So again, this is not about anything relating to anti LGBT or anti-trans. This is about protecting kids from content that is inappropriate for their age group. That’s exactly what the so-called don’t say gay bill was about in Florida. It was the parental rights and education bill. And all it said was that kids in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade should not be exposed to trash. I mean, what other reason would a three-year-old be circling words like leather or underwear in a word list except for the LGBTQ activists who are pushing this, trying to early expose them to kinks and fetishes and all of that nasty stuff that we’ve been seeing at Pride Parades where grown men expose their genitals to kids. 

It’s absolutely despicable. I don’t even have a kid, and yet I think about my hypothetical child in the future going into school and having a worksheet that looks like this and it makes me furious. So I can’t even imagine the wrath and the passion of the parents who are going out in Montgomery County, Maryland, and other places around the country. And what’s especially despicable is that the Biden administration is going on the side of the school boards and allowing the D O J to be weaponized against parents who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. We can’t ever forget that. Merrick Garland’s, d o j accepted a letter from the National School Board Association that accused these parents of being domestic terrorists because they dare to speak out about their own child’s education. And the D O J even marked these parents with a threat tag so that they could potentially track their movements, thereby treating them like domestic terrorists. 

You hear school boards and the Left in the transgender lobby claiming that these teaching materials are about inclusion. And it’s true that at some point in their life, children are going to encounter people who are transgender or or who are in gay relationships. But not only is that a lesson that should come from the parents in an age appropriate way, but it also doesn’t mean that these concepts should be normalized. All they’re trying to do is confuse children. If you tell a five-year-old that you can be any gender that you want, all you have to do is take a pill every single day. You’re basically setting them up to think that it’s no big deal to suffer from gender dysphoria or any of these other made up genders that the Left likes to come up with. So this is not about inclusion or teaching kids about alternative lifestyles. 

This is trying to normalize the idea of undergoing sex changes or normalizing gay marriage and gay adoption. And while we know that plenty of people live that way, we also know that this is not the type of family structure or the type of lifestyle that is best oriented towards raising happy and healthy children. Every study in the history of the planet shows that kids need a mother and a father. And if you don’t believe me, you can hear it straight from this daughter, a lesbian couple who is devastated that she doesn’t have a dad. Let’s watch 

Lucia. Do you ever wish Lucia has two moms? I’m not one of them, but she has two. Do you ever wish that you had a dad? 



Because dads are a little bit stronger kinda, but girls can be stronger. Have 

You seen your mothers? They’re very strong. 

Not as strong as Uncle Michael. Oh 

Yeah. So what do you need a stronger person for? To lift heavier things? 

No, to lift me up. Oh, to lift you up. And some I once heard someone that has a dad and I made friends with them and they, she said in the pool there’s this floaty. Yeah. And she, they lay in it and the dad and their dad picks them the floaty up. He picks it up in, hold it like this, and then they like clean our can. 

Okay, so he want a dad so he can lift things including you. Yes. Okay. Are there any other reasons you want a dad? 

No, not really. 

So really you just want your moms to go to the gym and get stronger. So if your moms could lift you over your head in the pool, would you still want a dad? Yes. 

If that doesn’t break your heart, then I don’t know what will. there’s so many interesting facets to that video. The first that this girl is basically describing these innate biological differences between men and women, and thereby mother and father that contribute to the rearing of a child. And she doesn’t know that she’s doing that. The only way she knows how to articulate that is by describing the strength that’s shown by a father. And this woman who’s sitting next to her, I believe it’s either one of the moms themselves or a friend of the lesbian couple, is trying to argue with this little girl who has this hole in her heart because she doesn’t have a dad. She’s trying to make her think that her feelings are irrational or unfair. I mean, she pushes back on this idea that she wants a father to be able to lift her and throw her up in the pool. 

And one of those joyous things that you see from dads who take their kids to the pool and this woman replies, well, you just need your moms to go to the gym and get stronger. Obviously missing the point. The point is not just about how strong someone is or how big their biceps are, but about the innate biological predisposition to men to being protectors, to having that more aggressive instinct to being carers and providers that every child craves from a parental relationship. And this girl is being conditioned to ignore those feelings and laugh along with the jokes about the moms getting stronger and to suppress this deep innate need for both a mother and a father. It’s absolutely devastating. And this is what is going on in the schools. This is why the Montgomery County parents are so angry because the teachers in the schools, the school boards who set the curriculum are trying to do the same thing that that woman is doing to that child, which is to deny that there is a superior way to have a family, to deny that a kid needs a mother and father to deny that you can’t change your biological sex. 

And no matter how hard you try, no matter matter how many hormones you take, no matter how many surgeries you go under, you can’t become a member of the opposite sex. There have been a number of bills around the country that have been described as anti-trans legislation by the media, which really just means banning the mutilation of children. Media outlets will also describe it as quote unquote gender affirming care, even though you can’t affirm somebody in a gender that they can never be. But one of these bills in Tennessee was recently struck down by a federal judge. and this was one of the first bills of its kind. It was promoted initially by the Daily Wire in Matt Walsh who did incredible work at exposing Vanderbilt Medical Center for putting kids through these I irreversible abusive procedures. And so I have no doubt that these pieces of legislation are probably going to end up in a monumental Supreme Court case because Arkansas has done the same in banning or, or rather putting a stay on a ban on gender treatments for children. 

And there’s a good reason, obviously why we would want to ban kids going through this. They are not able to consent to these procedures. They’re too young to understand what they’re doing, and there’s no evidence, not a single study that shows that kids who undergo gender transitions when they have gender dysphoria have better mental health outcomes or physical outcomes than children who suffer from gender dysphoria and don’t undergo these quote unquote treatments. There’s a recent study out of Denmark actually that shows that suicide and psyche psychiatric conditions are much higher in transgender people than non-transgender people. And that holds across whether or not someone actually undergoes a social or medical transition. And for all of the arguments about how the reason trans people are killing themselves as they’re not accepted enough, if they would just stop being bullied, then they wouldn’t commit suicide. Or if trans people had access to medical care, then they would be happier and healthier and and thriving. 

Just like people who are not transgender are, well, Denmark is one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to transgenderism. They were one of the countries that helped set the standard of medical treatments for people who have gender dysphoria that ultimately exported itself to the United States. There’s no trans bullying going on in Denmark, and yet the individuals who were counted up for this study and surveyed have the same issues with their mental health that people who identify as transgender or have gender dysphoria do across the globe. So it’s becoming clear that these mental illnesses predate the gender dysphoria. They’re not a cause of someone with gender dysphoria being bullied or having struggle with their body and not being able to transition to a member of the opposite sex. It’s that their mental illnesses often cause them to become gender dysphoric. 

That’s why we see so many young girls who have autism who are falling into this social contagion aspect of the transgender craze and saying that they identify as men. It’s because autism causes them to feel less comfortable overall in their body. And the trans lobby presents them with what is a seemingly simple solution, which is that they should just become a member of the opposite sex. The media is completely complicit in all of this too. It’s not just the schools, and we’ve talked about it earlier in the way that they describe anti-trans legislation or gender affirming care, or they refer to book bans when school board parents say that they don’t want sexually explicit content like in the book, gender Queer or Lawn Boy being presented to their kids in the library. And it’s actually worse than even that. The New York Times runs a kid section once a month on the last Sunday of the month. 

And in this kid section, a recent issue was called the Puberty Issue. The puberty issue contains all kinds of trans propaganda, including telling kids that if they’re curious about their gender, they should go on a chat room with other queer adults, strangers who are trying to turn them into members of the transgender community. They also tell them that they should watch TV shows and anime cartoons that will encourage them to explore outside of the so-called fake gender binary. They also warn these kids in the New York Times to not listen to their parents. They tell them that parents might not understand that the gender binary isn’t real and they might not affirm them in their gender. And so they’ll have to go to a different trusted adult to make sure that they can complete their transition. And at Politico, when they had several reporters trying to write about the fact that conservatives and Republicans were campaigning on the idea of protecting women’s sports from biological men or banning gender transitions for minors, they brought in members of a transgender activist group to tell reporters how they were and were not allowed to write about the issues. 

They said that using terms like biological male and female was actually transphobic. They said that they couldn’t use gendered language at all, and that most of the so-called neutral coverage about the transgender issue was steeped in sexism, transphobia, and a white man’s idea of what the truth is. This is at a supposedly nonpartisan, unbiased paper. They’re allowing their reporters to be lectured by political activist groups on how they’re allowed to write about these topics. This has permeated basically every part of our culture from schools to the media, to Hollywood. And it’s no wonder that so many young children are unfortunately finding themselves falling into this craze because they think that it’s the cool or hip thing to do. So it’s incumbent on us now more than ever to side with these parents like the ones in Montgomery County, Maryland and say that we’re gonna protect our kids from this radical ideology. 

My alma mater, Georgetown University is up to some interesting things again, and I am just constantly disappointed in them. I have to tell you, I graduated in 2016 and I was a very outspoken conservative there, and I did not have an easy time on campus. And now after leaving campus, I was kind of hoping maybe I could donate some money and try to do some good there. But after seeing the decisions that they make from an administrative standpoint, I just in good conscious cannot give my money to Georgetown. In this latest move, Georgetown has actually hired Dr. Anthony Fauci. That’s right. The former head of infectious disease response for the United States. And Dr. Fauci has a long, I guess, connection to Georgetown. So he and his wife actually got married there 30 odd something years ago. I don’t know exactly how many, but they got married at Dran Chapel, which is the on-campus church at Georgetown University. 

And his wife got both an undergraduate and graduate degree there. So I guess it’s no surprise that Georgetown would decide to bring this guy in considering his wife’s connection to the university, and he’s just gonna continue making more money as if the 400 plus thousand dollar a year pension was not enough. After destroying the lives of millions of the American people, he’s now going to be called a distinguished professor at Georgetown and collect another hefty salary. I wanna share this video of Dr. Fauci, his wife returning to campus, and just try not to roll your eyes as hard as I did. Here it is. 


You know, it’s just remember this. It’s just as beautiful as it was. 

38 years ago, 

38 years ago. We were standing right here. 

We were Christine, friends and loved ones 

By Yeah, I was really excited. 

Kind of remember walking in. I remember you standing there. Yeah, we looked a little younger. Then, 

My wife graduated from undergraduate here. She got her PhD in philosophy here. We were married in Dran Chapel. Our three daughters were born at Georgetown Hospital, and I live 10 blocks away. to come back and spend the next several years at the next chapter in my professional life in a place that just instinctively feels like home is really a good feeling. 

Yeah. And it has the values that you grew up with. Yeah. And learned in all of your Jesuit training, and you’ll be able to both celebrate and instill hopefully in others the value of public service. 

Given what I’ve been through and what I have to offer, I think what I have to offer is experience and inspiration to the younger generation of students. If I accomplish that, I think I’ll make a major contribution to Georgetown. My advice to young people expect the unexpected goes for me to expect the unexpected. So I’m gonna expect the unexpected here. 

He hopes that he’ll be an inspiration to young people. Could this guy be any more narcissistic? I mean, we had the in style poolside photo shoot, we had him saying that he is synonymous with science. Dr. Fauci is science, and he said that kids are going into science now because of him. Somebody give this guy a slice of humble pie. Now Georgetown is justifying the decision to hire Dr. Fauci by saying that he has a lifetime of public service. technically he worked in the public sector, but I wouldn’t describe anything that he did as service. And Georgetown is also conveniently forgetting that they have two other principles that the people who teach there are supposed to abide by. And these are in keeping with the university’s Jesuit tradition. Georgetown is the oldest Catholic college in the United States. The first is that the Jesuit academic tradition is supposed to seek truth, and yet Dr. 

Fauci lied repeatedly to the American people. He lied about masks from the get-go, claiming that people shouldn’t wear masks because they didn’t work only. We later found out that he did think that they worked, but he was trying to save them for the medical community because of the PPE shortage. So that was his own admission that he lied. Then he tried to claim that the virus was naturally occurring after conferring with scientists who told him pretty much the exact opposite, that it looked like this could have been leaked from a lab. And now scientific consensus has formed around the idea that Covid was in fact leaked from a lab. And still Dr. Fauci has refused to acknowledge that fact. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that he helped secure a grant for Harvard University’s medical school from the Chinese company ever. 

Grant, shortly before this lab leak theory started circulating among the scientific community. Or maybe it’s the fact as Dr. Fauci tried to hide in his testimony to Congress that the NIH was actually funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So it’s lie after lie from this guy. He also said that the percentage of people who had to either get infected with the virus or get the vaccine in order to reach herd immunity was lower than it actually was according to the scientific standard because he said Americans weren’t ready to hear the real number. Again, another admission that he is lying. And what planet does that make this guy eligible to be an educator? Georgetown’s other guiding principle is known as Cura Personalis, and that’s Latin for care for the whole person. This is the idea that when you’re designing public policy or deciding how to best serve others, you have to take in account their full circumstances. 

Fauci did the opposite of that with his proposed lockdown policy. Rather than just making sure the most vulnerable Americans were protected from catching covid, he forced everyone to stay at home. He put millions of Americans out of work. He led to an epidemic of loneliness, physical ailments, depression, anxiety, suicide, all because he couldn’t be bothered to think about all of the negative side effects that the lockdowns would have on the American people. Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins study show that the lockdowns didn’t even work the way that they were intended. And that these other deaths, deaths of despair that grew out of the circumstances that Americans found themselves in were basically equivalent to the supposed number of lives saved from people staying home for months on end. That’s not care for the whole person or cura person, Alice. So this guy has made a career out of lying and out of designing bad public policy and the oldest Catholic university in the country, which is supposed to basically have elite status, it’s just below the Ivy League, has hired him and is paying him money to teach the next generation of doctors. 

Is anything more terrifying than that? Well, maybe because Georgetown Medical School is also their future doctors, that children who have gender dysphoria should in fact be undergoing puberty, blocker and hormone therapy treatment. Not only should they be going through it, but the on the only way to help many transgender people, the Georgetown Medical Guidance says in a class on human biology and sexuality is to fix their bodies through medical intervention. The course also falsely claims that puberty blockers are fully reversible. Another lie from a Catholic medical school and also obviously not consistent with Catholic teaching, which completely rejects the idea that you can change your body or become a member of the opposite sex or that you should, the whole idea that God would’ve put somebody in the wrong body or created a mismatch between mind and and body. Soul and body is completely inconsistent with the Catholic tradition. 

When I was at Georgetown, I faced an onslaught of leftist students and administrators who did everything in their power basically to try to silence conservatives on campus. I will never forget my freshman year, I decided that I wanted to start a gun club so that I could recruit people to go out and go to the shooting range and practice gun safety. And I put an advertisement for this club on my freshman year dorm room door. And after about two days of the sign being up, I received an email from my ra and the RA told me, I kid you not that I had been reported for having this sign on my door because I was supposedly making other students feel unsafe. And I just shook my head as I read this email, how could a sign words on a piece of paper make anyone feel unsafe? 

I talked to some of my friends about it and they thought it was equally ridiculous. And so instead of getting rid of the sign, I decided that I was going to do something about it. So we went around the entire dorm room and we took pictures of any potentially objectionable sign, whether it was a curse word or a drawing of genitalia. College kids love to draw male genitalia apparently with expo markers. And we also found this really interesting picture that a couple of students had drawn of the RA himself in an a rather compromising position, we’ll say. I took pictures of all of them, attached them to an email, sent them to the RA and said, I will take down my sign when you tell all of these other students that their signs make me feel unsafe. And he replied, Touche. And I never heard another thing about it, but that was characteristic of the culture at Georgetown, which was that the students, the administrators, the individuals who worked there, staff members all had this idea that they had a monopoly on truth and they had to shut down anyone who disagreed with them. 

Meanwhile, they also, despite going to the oldest Catholic school in the country, hated Catholics. I mean the Georgetown Lecture Fund, which received student money to bring speakers to campus decided my senior year that they were going to bring Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards on campus for an abortion rally when the pro-life group on campus asked if they could have a q and a session with her, they told were told that they were limited to only two questions. So great free speech there, Georgetown and recently Ilia Shapiro, a lawyer, was pushed out of the GU Law Center because he dared to question the credentials of Kaji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court. And another law professor, Sandra Sellers was fired because she was noticing a pattern that black students who had been led in under affirmative action policies were not performing as well in her classes. It’s not just Georgetown though. 

The reason I bring this up is that Georgetown is indicative of the larger culture of higher education. There’s no desire for academic inquiry or vigorous debate or this idea of pushing the boundaries and trying to seek truth. Higher education now is just about indoctrinating people with left-wing policies and trying to turn them into activists when they go out into the real world. And it’s working because despite having all of these horrific ideas, radical ideas, these kids go out into the real world and they end up getting hired by big tech companies, Hollywood government, pretty much every institution that exercises tons of power across our society. So colleges are definitely the breeding ground for the radicalness that we see in the Democratic party today. Landmark ruling, the Supreme Court last week struck down affirmative action policies at universities. They are no longer allowed to use race as a factor when deciding who gets to go to school there. 

And this was a case that was centered on admissions policies at both Harvard and the University of North Carolina. And in the Harvard case inter interestingly enough, the main plaintiffs were actually Asian Americans, not white Americans, which has sort of been the refrain from the media since this decision was handed down, claiming that they’re going to bring back racial supremacy or white supremacy in colleges. Asian Americans end up having on average higher test scores and better GPAs than pretty much any other race in America. But because so many of them were getting accepted into these elite institutions, the elite institutions decided that they needed to rig the game against Asian Americans and also white Americans too. And so they implemented this affirmative action policy back in the sixties after the civil rights movement. And what it did is it essentially lowered standards for black and Hispanic Americans. 

It said that because of the historical legacy of slavery, that these students were not able to perform as highly as students who were not subjected to slavery. And so therefore, they needed a leg up in the admissions process. Now, this is obviously completely contradictory with a merit a meritocracy, which is what America is supposed to be, right? The Constitution says that people are not supposed to be treated differently based on their race or creed. They are supposed to be treated acor according to their individuality as a person. And colleges completely rejected that by implementing these affirmative action measures. But the Supreme Court said, no, we’re not doing it anymore. You might have been able to get away with this for a number of decades and basically reshape the demographics of your institutes of higher ed and lower standards for some students while students who performed well or better were punished by not getting accepted into these colleges. 

And Clarence Thomas is one of the justices, of course, who wrote one of the concurring opinions with the majority, and he had some really incredible things to say. He says, quote, it sees the university’s admissions policies for what they are rudderless race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes. These policies fly in the face of our colorblind constitution and our nation’s equality ideal. In short, they are plainly and boldly unconstitutional. This is a huge victory for conservatives. I really can’t overstate it. And following the overturning of Roe v Wade, this is probably the second biggest Supreme Court decision. In decades, affirmative action policies have been a thorn in the side of conservatives for a long time because again, they’re against the idea of meritocracy. They tell people that because they have a particular skin color or because they were born to parents of a particular race that they cannot achieve at the same level of students of a different race, and therefore they need special treatment. 

And this only hurts the people that it purports to help. These students who were getting in under lower standards were also not performing at a high enough standard. Once they got to those colleges, their dropout rates were much higher than their white and Asian counterparts. Their grades were lower, their ability to find jobs after graduation was lower because they weren’t prepared for the rigorous coursework that was expected of them at these elite institutions. The left responded to this as they typically do with character assassination, and they started with Justice Clarence Thomas himself. Now, justice Clarence Thomas is obviously a very accomplished individual, highly successful and highly intelligent, but to the Left, he’s just another black person who is apparently turning on his own race, and they point out repeatedly that he is a recipient of affirmative action policies himself, and this therefore makes him a hypocrite. Let’s watch what an MSNBC analyst had to say about Justice Clarence Thomas concurring with the majority opinion overturning affirmative action. 

We know 

What they, how have these other states that already have banned affirmative action programs implemented that I think that could provide a roadmap perhaps for the rest of the country. I mean, is there an all alternative that some states that you know of have they have not been able 

To? How do you diversify without taking race in account? What are you diversifying? You’re diversifying, you know, people’s income. You know Clarence Thomas, you know, he has criticized affirmative action. That’s how, that’s one of the reasons why he graduated from Yale, and we know that’s one of the reasons why he’s on the Supreme Court. So it that someone 

Like that isn’t part of his argument. Like you’re not giving enough credit to people of color that they can accomplish what it is. You’re saying affirmative action is intended to help accomplish. The 

Problem with that argument is that the issue is not the credit being given to people of color. The issue is the credit being given or the decision on the decision maker side. Yes, that’s the problem. The problem is never about whether people are qualified. The issue is whether those qualifications are going to be judged properly by people who are making decisions in such a way that is going to allow the continued access to these spaces by people who have been historically denied them. 

What these people are saying here is precisely why Justice Clarence Thomas hates affirmative action because they are discounting his accomplishments because they believe that he was just a number, just a way for a university to diversify its student body. He’s tired of people questioning his accomplishments and his achievements because he was admitted under affirmative action. And he’s talked about this before, he said, initially I thought that this was a blessing, that I was an affirmative action recipient. I appreciated that someone saw me as potentially valuable to an institution, but he’s someone who actually put the work in and deserved it. And looking back, he said this was a curse really, because I was not expected to live up to the same potential as these other students who had been admitted without having an affirmative action bonus to their to their their application to the university. 

So these people are exactly explaining why affirmative action doesn’t help the people that it purports to help. Not only do they go into these schools ill-prepared for the studies and the coursework, but they also have to live their entire life knowing that there is an asterisk next to everything that they have done. Some of them don’t deserve to get in, some of them do. And the ones that do and the ones that work hard even after receiving affirmative action acceptance don’t deserve to go through life knowing that other people see them as just a racial minority or just someone who was there to add racial diversity. And this woman in this clip laughs about the idea of diversifying based on income or how about ideology or basically any other thing that makes a person unique besides their skin color. She thinks that that whole concept is ridiculous. 

David Bernstein wrote a really incredible book called Classified, and it’s all about the way that the racial classification system works in America, and he explains the fundamental folly behind affirmative action policies, which is treating everyone who has the same skin color as if they’re interchangeable. He told me, if you’re the son of the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States and you come here for high school and decide to stay and become an American citizen when you turn 18, you get the same preference for college as someone whose grandfather was a sharecropper in Alabama. In what world does that make sense? You could have a white person who adds far more value to a university because they come from unfortunate circumstances or had to face a lot of adversity growing up, but they don’t receive the same weight to their application as maybe a wealthy black person does because they’re not considered diverse enough for a college. 

There’s a Reuters article about black bar passage rates. So this is for black individuals who go through law school and end up taking the bar, and it shows that these kids who undergo affirmative action, they get into the law schools without having as high of an LSAT score end up being harmed by this. The first time pass rate on the bar for white test takers was 83%, while only 57% of the black examinees passed in their first attempt. How is that helping individuals who need opportunity or need a leg up if you actually wanna help the black community? It’s not through affirmative action, it’s through making sure they have stable families. It’s through making sure they don’t have crime in their communities and making sure they have a good primary education system instead of these, these public schools who despite getting all of our tax dollars, don’t have good outcomes for kids. Affirmative action was supposedly a way to give people more opportunity, but what it really did was it created a system where everyone was a product of their skin color and not an individual. So hurrah to the Supreme Court for overturning this disastrous policy. What a huge victory. President Joe Biden responded to the Supreme Court overturning affirmative action. Let’s listen to what he had to say. 

Many people wrongly believe that affirmative action allows unqualified students, unqualified students to be admitted ahead of qualified students. This is not, this is not how college admissions work. Rather, colleges set out standards for admission and every student, every student has to meet those standards. Then and only then after first meeting, the qualifications required by the school do college look at other factors in addition to their grades such as race. The way it works in practice is this colleges first established a qualified pool of candidates based on meeting certain grade test scores and other criteria then and only then, then and only then it is from this pool of applicants, all of whom have already met the school standards that the class has chosen after weighing a wide range of factors among them being race. 

That’s just a lie. That’s not how it works at all. There’s not some minimum standard that any applicant has to meet when applying to a university. There’s an average test score or an average G P A that most students will have when they get accepted to an Institute of Higher Learning. But these are not hard and fast rules. Colleges make exemptions for people all the time, and they especially do so when they have someone who has a lower test score, but maybe comes from a background that they view as disadvantage. For example, if they have an Asian American applicant who has a 35 or 36 on their a C T and a black applicant who has a 31, they are going to add weight and priority to the individual who is black, even if they have a lower score. And what Biden is describing there is still problematic. 

If you have two applicants who have the same qualifications and the only deciding factor is race, how is that fair? How does this person having a different skin color from from me give them priority over me even though we performed exactly the same? Shouldn’t colleges be looking at things that actually enriched the student body like life experience or jobs that they worked or extracurriculars instead of making the race, the end all be all of whether or not a student is valuable enough to get to go to school there? Americans agree by the way that affirmative action is a full hearty policy. According to a Pew research poll, 50% of Americans disapprove of selective colleges considering race and ethnicity and admissions decision. While only a third of people approve with racial preferences. This is a winning issue for the right because it’s so obviously unfair to say that because of someone’s skin color, they deserve special treatment even if they don’t perform as well. Thank you so much for joining us today. Again, I’m Amber Athe. I’m the Washington editor for The Spectator. You can find me on Twitter at amber underscore athe and check out my work at And this has been the Liz Wheeler Show. 


Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top