The Adversity Of Diversity

How Real Unity Training Can Promote Healing in a Post-Affirmative Action World.
"This timely book... tells us what we should do next in this country that truly recognizes the sacred promise that all men are indeed created equal." - Famed Economist Art Laffer, PhD
#newbook #newbookalert #carolswain #affirmativeaction #crt #highereducation #race

[@kimholowell9245]

Excited for your book release Carol!! 🎉congratulations

[@boaz784]

The world needs constant prayer for many to understand love Gods love. .. he doesn’t divide His people. 🙏🙏

[@feelingcreative7649]

Dear Dr Swain, I saw your interview on the Glen Loury Show. I've seen brief interviews with you but I was so happy when I watched this interview. Your smile is genuine and your eyes sparkle when you talk about freedom. I'm a 60 yo female who has been living in a free country her whole life and wants it to stay free. I would like to help you but I can't donate money. Right now my commitment to you is to pray at 11:21 every day for you. I've joined with Diamond (rest in peace) and Silk to pray every day at 11:21. I've taken a stand against things I'm able and helping restore relations between family and friends that have been destroyed by this evil regime. Best wishes and prayers for your continued success in changing minds by educating them. I pray God's blessings on you and I pray for strength and financial blessing for you from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[@EasyLawBot1]

Thanks @Dr. Carol M. Swain: Be the People News for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

[@hanko5750]

On its way ... from Amazon