The Supreme Court Should Have Allowed ALL Free Association

The Supreme Court Should Have Allowed ALL Free Association

You have heard that SCOTUS struck down, in a weak way, Affirmative Action at universities, the systemic pandering to blacks and other people “of color”. (PDF of ruling.) This is conditional good news. But it would have been far, far better for the Court to allow discrimination—of all kinds.

The story is well known. Of-colors were systemically preferentially admitted to many colleges and universities because they were of-colors, while of-no-colors, and honorary of-no-colors (east Asians), were systemically squashed. Is this what they mean by “systemic racism”?

For instance, blacks were allowed much lower MCAT scores in order to matriculate to medical schools, and, once inside, they were allowed much lower Step scores. Even that was not enough, with the routine calls going out to eliminate all forms of testing. To concentrate entirely on political considerations instead. We have discussed incidents like these many times.

Before we get going it’s amusing that one of the three dissents came from a black woman who was loudly and publicly elevated to the Court because she was black and a woman. She would never had been able to make the grade on her merits alone. And now we must all suffer her inferior abilities. Luckily she was in the minority last week. But this will not always be the case.

Yet there is a bright spot. This justice asked the Court to defer to Experts—the very word she used—to decide on who universities should admit.

I agree with her.

Yes, really.

The Court’s ruling is conditional good news. It will slow down, but not stop, pandering to blacks and other Victims. But the Court could have gone further and allowed all discrimination.

I joked on Twitter:

The left, being evil, is already working to go around the loss of Affirmative Action.

They will use techniques that they decried as “racist”, too [when used in “AI”]. Like looking at applicant zip codes or high schools and other strong correlates of race. Maybe even presence of a criminal record.

Several readers gave proof that UC schools are already doing this, as Harvard says it will, too. Justice Roberts gave his blessing for this.

What this means is that pandering survives, but the solution to it remains illegal. Of-no-colors and honorary of-no-colors will not have their situation improved.

Even better would be to restore Freedom. Allow people to consider race, or whatever, whenever they want. If Harvard wants all blacks, let them. If, say, Yale wants only trannsexuals and other members of the LGBTQWERTY++ “community”, let them.

If you want to put real fear into the left, tell them they can have complete freedom for Harvard to pursue whoever they want. Insist that all colleges can exclude every normal white and Asian man, with no fear of any Court or law to hinder them.

Tell the left they can have free association. Every group can pick their members based on whatever criteria they like. Tell them they can exclude whoever they like, for any reason they like.

Your leftist friend will have an initial sensation of glee, as he gets to openly and energetically ban normal white, and sometimes Asian, men. The paradise of having the their hated enemies banned! A bright and glorious future!

Let the law be Free Association for all!

Your leftist friend will smile and rub his hands in eager anticipation of total power. But then, if he has any intelligence, which is far from a given in a group of people that think some women have penises, his thoughts will turn black and he will despair.

Because Free Association for all means the excluded can in turn exclude.

Michigan, following Texas, last week passed an anti-discriminatin law based on…hair style. Which is madness. Unless there is Free Association. Let those with curly hair band together and bar the straights, if they wish. But then you must allow the straights to ban the bent.

The left knows they cannot survive without one-way discrimination. They can form whatever groups they wish, while forbidding their enemies any Free Association. This is prudent, because if Free Association is restored, the left wouldn’t last one year.

We mention in passing that that old document con-servatives are fond of calling on has as the law of the land Free Association. It’s right there. In print. But that was long ago forgotten in the mad rush to DIE.

Eliminate all “anti-discrimination” laws. Cut their throats and bury these laws. Free Association is what we want.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. Paulus Rexus Legitimus

    who are the ‘werty+’ people, are they dangerous?

  2. JR Ewing

    When minorities and other outcasts say they have a right to be free from “discrimination”, what they really mean is that they have a right to exist in proximity to and to leach off of whites and normals, who in turn aren’t allowed to escape. It’s the whole logic behind Section 8 housing, for crying out loud.

    Would Harvard still be Harvard if it were 100% black? Absolutely not, for the same reason that none of the HBCU’s have turned into Harvard on their own after all this time.

  3. Hoyos

    OK maybe I’m confused, where is freedom of association in the constitution? My understanding is some think it’s implied but I don’t think it’s in there. Don’t get me wrong it seems like an obviously good thing to have freedom of association, I’m in favor of it, but I don’t think it’s in there.

  4. Carlos Julio Casanova Guerra

    What you say is fine, it’s prudent, which means that it takes into account the concrete circumstances of the situation at hand. But it’s only such, because of the sick character of the society we are talking about. Freedom of association, as the Spain’s Constitutional Court says, is the only guarantee of true freedom in society. It’s the way to fulfill the principle of subsidiarity, without which there’s inevitable tyranny (that’s why it’s in the BOOKS, in any free society, with any “mechanical” regime, I mean, no matter the external forms of the regime). OK, but your solution is good only for a particular sickness, because discrimination on racial grounds is discrimination on accidental being, not associated with character or intelligence or merit or the essence of humanity. It’s just that that issue is the spearhead of the revolution in the US. But not a universal question. So….. you get the rest….

  5. Zundfolge

    The huge irony is if you eliminated all discrimination laws tomorrow, in most cities you’d have a couple of “whites only” businesses open, but you’d have dozens of “blacks only” and “latinos only” businesses open (which frankly already exist without ever being harassed by The Law).

    And within 6 months the vast majority of the “whites only” businesses would have closed (because they would have a harder time attracting customers, find themselves cut off by suppliers and in a significantly large number of cases be shut down by BLM/Antifa violence). But the “blacks only” and “latinos only” would become the centers of their respective communities and community institutions for generations.

    We know who the actual racists are, and its not the whites.

  6. Johnno

    Freedom of Association should begun with questioning the continued existence of the union.

    States should consider if they want to secede or not. Then may be form their own union/economic partnerships with other states. Just think of all the new flags you get to make, or simply fly your original state one.

    That will really get the globalist lefties howling. They will literally be screaming underneath their masks!

  7. Ann Cherry

    Hoyos poses a very good question:

    “OK maybe I’m confused, where is freedom of association in the constitution? My understanding is some think it’s implied but I don’t think it’s in there….”

    The First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall not make any law abridging the right of people to peaceably assemble. Is this where we get the idea of “freedom of association”?

    Or is it a matter of those unenumerated “other rights” (presumably, “natural rights”) that would be included under the Ninth Amendment?

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Most people inherently practice “freedom of association” in their private lives, but what about in their businesses? Some of us are old enough to remember when “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” was posted in most businesses, to keep out the riffraff, who come in all races.

    This article from Cornell Law gives a pretty good overview:

    “[A] right to associate to further political and social views is protected against unreasonable burdening, but the evolution of this right in recent years has passed far beyond the relatively narrow contexts in which it was born.”

    In finding that a lower court erred in forcing Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scout masters, the court stated:

    “The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”

    So we’ve gone from “freedom of association” to “freedom of expressive association.” We may “discriminate” against certain viewpoints, but not against certain races or sexes.

    If discrimination based upon viewpoint is legally acceptable, as “freedom of expressive association”, and if sex, race, age, and even whether one is human or a “furry” are merely “viewpoints”, why are there ANY anti-discrimination laws?

  8. commuter college partisan

    Why do universities discriminate at all? Why is it not just an “if you can pay you can take courses until you give up and stop wasting your money since you’re failing out”? I actually went to acollege like that, a commuter college. Admissions were totally open. But what courses you go to take were based on your test scores, i.e. where you began in math, like if you started with calculus, precal, or algebra. And dum dums would fail so often they’d lose all scholarships and get tired of paying out of pocket and leave. This is the superior system.

  9. I know next to nothing about law.. however:

    1 – I do not think affirmative action has much to do with freedom of association. The original goal of affirmative action [AA] was to prevent colleges etc locking out blacks. The goal of the recent lawsuits were to prevent them from locking out asians. So what the court really said was something like “AA doesn’t work, so stop doing something we thought might despite being obviously unconstitutional.”

    2 – I imagine (without much basis) that the real consequences of this judgement won’t be felt too much in academia – but in corporate boardrooms (and democrat dominated legislatures) where the judgement pretty clearly applies to diversity hires and mandated race/sex quotas.

  10. Johnno

    Eh… the liberalist Jews are good at inviting problems upon themselves…

    “A Nanterre, Paris memorial to victims of the holocaust has been defaced by protesters & rioters angry over the police-shooting of a French Algerian youth. The country has been experiencing race riots since Tuesday.”

    Let the Experts know that the Experts are the reason anti-semitism is rising. But I’m sure they’ve got a model to explain why the fault is not theirs, but you! You unvexxed bigots!

  11. Cary D Cotterman

    I got into college, stayed in college, and graduated from college on merit and hard work. I paid my college expenses by working for wages. Oddly, this approach has been condemned by the left. They want an easy academic ride that’s a financial gift from taxpayers.

  12. Relax. Once Whites become sufficiently minority the powers that be will start using them as a stick to beat the majority. The powers that be prioritize the minorities as a method of constraining the majorities who might otherwise organize to a point that the powers that be are threatened.

  13. Johnno

    Nah, if there’s anything we’ve learnt by now, it’s that liberalized whites (including those liberals that think themselves “conservative” aka liberal-lites) don’t have the balls to do the things the violent minorities do. The powers that be will be eaten by their own imported offspring in due time. Like Jezebel, they will be thrown to the dogs, and the conquerors shall inherit their infrastructure. The fraction of whites that remain and survive will no longer be plagued with Americanist errors such as unbridled liberty that ignores the laws of God and His Church. Even then the dark skins will rule, but worry not. Colder climates will eventually favor genetically fairer skin and a couple hundred years of natural selection will see the white population grow again.

  14. Gunther Heinz

    If you wanna join the Automobile Association of America you have to pay. It ain’t free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *