Without fail, every time I see one of my Democratic friends talk about the Supreme Court's recent decision on affirmative action, it's a confirmation they know little about the case. The claims are generally based on affirmative action benefitting white students, with satirical sites like The Onion joking, "Harvard Admits First White Student." And if they were right, that'd be worth commenting about - but it's not.

In Students for Fair Admissions vs. UNC, the schools in question, Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the rest, explicitly asked for the ability to discriminate on admitting students based on race. In this case, the principal plaintiffs were Asian American students from a variety of countries in Asia who were denied admission to these schools based on their race - this was an undisputed fact in the case.

The question is whether the Constitution allows this kind of discrimination. Naturally, anyone who makes even a cursory read of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution immediately understands that racial discrimination is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. That is unless you're a progressive justice.

Liberal Justices Try to make Racial Discrimination Easier.

The liberal justices of the court even tried excusing this kind of discrimination. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson wanted to lower the bar to how this discrimination is analyzed, making it easier for schools to take these actions. Chief Justice Roberts observed, "one dissent candidly advocates abandoning the demands of strict scrutiny. ... arguing the Court must 'get out of the way,' 'leav[e] well enough alone,' and defer to universities and 'experts' in determining who should be discriminated against. An opinion professing fidelity to history (to say nothing of the law) should surely see the folly in that approach."

That's not the only irony, however. Justice Sotomayor went further and suggested that the court allow racial discrimination because institutions like Harvard, UNC, and others have a racist past. In that racist past, these institutions were explicitly racist and denied admission for cruel reasons of racism.

Chief Justice Roberts dryly observed, "the principal dissent at one point attempts to press a different remedial rationale altogether, stating that both respondents 'have sordid legacies of racial exclusion.' Such institutions should perhaps be the very last ones to be allowed to make race-based decisions, let alone be accorded deference in doing so."

Long, Sordid Past of Racial Discrimination at Elite Schools.

He's right! Why do we look at Harvard's racial discrimination in the past as wrong, but suddenly discriminating against Asians is fine? It's the same action, just different races involved.

What's even more incomprehensible about reading the dissents is that they're right about the racist past. In 2005, Jerome Karabel wrote a book called, "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton." In it, we learn about decades of discrimination that Jews faced from these same institutions. Jews were denied college admission on the basis that they were Jews.

That book went on to win the National Jewish Book Award in 2005. And again, none of the facts of that discrimination or the discrimination these universities are doling out today is questioned. We have one set of justices willing to defend racial discrimination because it fits their ideal forms of racial diversity. And the others are upholding constitutional standards of fairness for all.

When the Supreme Court asked these progressives how much more discrimination is needed to achieve racial parity, the liberals can only answer: "More." There is no end in sight. Racial discrimination can never end in the progressive's world.

Ending the Progressive Fantasies of Racial Discrimination.

Fortunately, the affirmative action programs at universities are over. The practices they've used to discriminate against different races are finally over.

The liberal-progressive fantasies of achieving a better society through racial discrimination go back a long way. President Woodrow Wilson, arguably the first progressive President, segregated the federal government in the early 20th century. Jobs that Black Americans could get in the federal government suddenly disappeared. Wilson used job admission practices that you'd find in Harvard, UNC, and other modern schools.

Over time, progressives have taken those same policies and changed the arguments used to justify them. Wilson supported the KKK and wrote tracts on the Confederacy. Modern progressives talk about diversity. The result is the same: praising racial discrimination as a tool to make society "better."

No excuses are made; it's simply argued that racial discrimination is a tool the government should be allowed to use to further various goals. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck this practice down, and the law is shifting against these pernicious practices.

The left is right — these institutions do have long records of racism. No one questions that. That's why no one in their right mind should trust these same institutions to suddenly start discriminating "the right way." There is no right way to discriminate racially — it's wrong and flatly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court majority fixed a long historical wrong — but it should have been unanimous.