Is the Affirmative Action Issue Resolved? - with Ben Johnson

this information. We need to grow. We need to grow this incredible grassroots movement across this country right now, more people awake than ever before. But I’m telling you, folks, there are people that are hungry for truth. They’re looking for answers, and you’ve got them. The Bible has the answers to every problem we’re facing in our culture. And here at WallBuilders Live, we bring that biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective to

each of these topics. So we’re challenging you to be a force multiplier and take today’s program and all of our programs and start sharing them on your social media.Help raise awareness to the fact that there’s a program out there that is bringing answers to these

cultural issues. And action steps for our listeners, things you can do in your community, like be a Constitution coach and start educating people in your home or at your church, bringing one of our speakers from WallBuilders to your community and put it on a special event to get people educated and inspired and equipped. There’s so many different things that you can do. We encourage you to check all of that out at wallbuilderslive.com. And also I encourage you to make a

donation. It takes fuel in the tank, folks, to get on more stations, to reach more people, to train more pastors, to train more legislators and young people. All the different things we’re doing here, you can lock shields with us by making that donation at wallbuilderslive.com, by investing your time to be a coach. So, many things that you can do. Take some action today and make part of those action steps sharing WallBuilders Live with your friends and family.

Alright, David and Tim, we got Ben Johnson with us later, he's got a great article on one of the Supreme Court decisions, you guys already talked about it on good news Friday, a week or so

ago. And we had Kelly Shackelford last week talking about some of the religious liberty victories, his article's on the affirmative action case that basically overturned the affirmative action for admissions in universities, for the most part, which is how his article basically says, you know, believers should be mostly excited about this decision, but interesting topic and a biblical

topic. And I don't think people typically think that whenever you start talking about affirmative action, race relations, that sort of stuff, you know, that we've kind of been taught, all those are political issues, not biblical issues. But actually, these issues are all addressed by the Bible.

of fighting back and forth. And instead of the concept that all men are created equal, they're endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, that government exists protect those rights for all people. We've said, Well, you know, because you weren't treated fair, we have to give more rights to others than some and so we start deciding who gets more rights, who gets less rights, and how long they get to keep those rights and when something is equitable. And that's just not

the way God does it. He doesn't treat people differently in that way. And so I think the court is moving back in the right direction. And, you know, Rick, we even talked about it a week or so ago that the affirmative action decision while it's really good in so many areas, it sure left the door open for backtracking and doing some bad things that are not in the

direction we want to move. So overall, it's like a 90% win, but it's that 10% that still concerns you because instead of putting the death nail in the coffin on this thing and nailing the coffin lid down and make sure didn't get open again, they put hinges on the coffin lid so that it can come open if they need it in the future, and that's just not the good thing for it, but overall, it's still a good decision, but man treating people differently, regardless, is just not a good policy.

can't use race as a measurement. We're just saying it can't be like your main measurement. And so I really wonder if he was trying to do the right thing as a little bit of the right thing, you know, cross the line, just as shallowly as possible, entering into that pool, so to speak, where I'm doing the right thing, but I don't want to do it, I'm not going to cannonball in the deep into the pool, right? Like, I'm just going to barely cross over this thing. I'm going to get my toes in the

water and say we did it. But, you know, Dad to your point, if you look back at the notion of the American government, the idea that from the Founding Fathers is that we all have come from a creator, and he created us equal, and government's job is to protect our rights. And that's why under the Constitution, the idea was there supposed to be equality under the law. So we recognize in the declaration that where all men

are created equal. And then the Constitution, we said that we're all going to be equal under the law, we're going to treat everybody the same. So the idea that we've come to the place now, where the government or that some of these political organizations or some of these political leaders are going to pick and choose favorites, that that's what happens in socialist

nations. And in fact, that's what was happening with with England, when there was a hierarchy in England, and you had your king who chose the Lords and the nobles, and he would choose his friends and give them land. And then you have the peasants and serfs who worked for the people who have

land. This is exactly what the founding fathers were fighting against saying, no, no, we're not going to do hierarchies, we're not going to have favored groups, we're not going to give our friends these additional benefits along the way, that's not how we do it here, we recognize that we are all equal.

And then the Constitution was to uphold a standard of equality under the law that no one's above the law, and affirmative action, even though we can look back and recognize there were some things that were done, maybe with a good heart and good

intentions, genuinely, right? I mean, maybe if you're looking at some of the states, in the southern states, in the south with, you know, kind of the 1960s Civil Rights era, you can make some pretty valid arguments that they needed intervention to stop some of these incredibly racist Democrat policies that

were happening down there. And affirmative action was something helping to fight back against this oppressive, racist policies that were in some of those places in Democrats, cities, etc. But what it has become today, however well intentioned it might have been, it has become a pretty racist thing today, saying, unless you are in this specific group, if you're in any other group, any other category, we don't care how oppressed and minorities, whatever else, if you're not in

our group, then you don't get the rights that we're fighting for. It's become a very racist organization. And so what the Supreme Court did is, by and large, a very good decision, but as mentioned, I think Justice Roberts was just showing some of his cowardice and not wanting to uphold the actual constitutional standard of saying that it's equality under the law, we don't have favored groups.

Nonetheless, there were still good things that came from that, obviously, very good things that came from that decision.

Jonas Clark in Lexington. When they asked Pastor Clark if his church was ready for the approaching British, he replied, “I’ve trained them for this very hour, they will fight; and if need be, die under the shadow of the house of God.” Later that morning, 70 men from his church, a several 100 British in the first battle of the war for independence. As Pastor Clark affirmed, “The militia that morning were the same who filled the pews of the church meaning house on the Sunday morning

before.” The American church was regularly at the forefront of the fight for liberty. For more information on this pastor and other colonial patriots, go to WallBuilders.com .

I've been really intrigued by their articles and read one recently on you know, another summer of love, folks, I'm telling you, last summer summer of love, if you love the Constitution, this summer, we got a little more in one of the most important decisions. Everybody seemed to think it was a home run all the way. I didn't, I saw some things in it, I was like, wow, it's great. I love it. But there's some stuff

in there. Of course, John Roberts had to leave in order to make it problematic later on. Well, anyway, Ben Johnson wrote an article that just summarized everything I was thinking on this decision, and we're blessed to have him on the program today. Ben, thanks for coming on man and great article.

and measures all of that. So you hit so many good points in this. I want people to listen today to our short few minutes together, but I really want them to go read the entire article. So WashingtonStand.com . And then of course, we'll have a link to this specific article. Ben, you know, you're an observer of the court, you're watching this stuff, you know, great decision. What is it that made you a little bit, you know, well, it's not all good. There's mostly good.

Going back to 1964, when they passed the civil rights law, Hubert Humphrey, who was one of the main proponents, future Vice President of the United States, ran for president in 1968 said, if you can show me anything in this bill that establishes quotas, I will... either he said I will eat my hat or I will eat the bill page by page. It's not... there are are different ideas about which one he said.

Of course, that's precisely what had ended up happening both in employment through the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and then in college admissions in 1978. With through the Bakke case, and 20 years ago, there was a case involving the University of Michigan Grutter V. Bollinger, where essentially, they hit the snooze button on making a determination about race based admissions. They said in 25 years, we think they should no longer be necessary. That was 2003, 20

years ago. And essentially, John Robertson said, this kind of just open discrimination based on race is unconstitutional. There may have been, in his mind, a reason for it, and a place for it, in order to remedy past wrongs of Jim Crow, and so on. But there is no room for that under the Constitution, and it has to come to an end. Now, that part is good. What's concerning to me, as I say, is the use of race conscious as

opposed to race based. And later on, he says nothing in this opinion, should disqualify people from considering race as part of people's overall ideas, when they make an admission to college, they have to make some kind of a personal biographical statement, they mentioned challenges they've overcome.

There was just a study that was released this past week about how people from an Asian background would do everything they could not to admit that they were Asian to try and camouflage the fact that they were Asian, and that others who were in different groups who do all they could to emphasize that aspect, because it was preferential based on their treatment. Those essays can still be heard, and those factors can still be considered.

And then there are a whole bunch of other ways that very influential and creative people in college admissions can consider race, they can do it based on income, they can do it based on zip code. This area is primarily one ethnic background, we will admit those people as opposed to others. So there are a lot of ways that they can kind

of get around it. I think that's going to be the next stage is this sort of ongoing, decade's long whack a mole process to finally get merit based applications at colleges.

of our character. Is your, when you talk about this with people, how does anybody defend the idea that we're going to separate each other into categories based on race, and that's not racism? I just don't even understand how they make that argument with a straight face.

1965. And he said, You cannot take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting point of a race and say you're free to compete with the others and justly believe that you've been completely fair. He said what we're looking forward today, we've established equality of opportunity, but he says we want, this is a quote, not just equality has a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

But the only way you get equality of results is treat different kinds of behavior unequally. So if someone is more competent in certain ways, or has a higher GPA was more likely to be able to thrive in a university like Harvard. That person, depending on the color and the accident... what John F. Kennedy called the accident of his birth will be excluded based

on that factor. And someone else will take that place who is perhaps would do better in a state university, or a second tier, private college, but not absolutely in the Ivy League. So the idea that you can separate people based on race and not having to be racism, particularly goes to critical race theory. It's the most influential doctrine in America today. I believe it's the most pernicious doctrine, it is racialism, but the greatest exponent of it is Ibram X kendi.

In his book, How to be Antiracist, he writes that racial discrimination is a good thing, actually, that in the past, one race has been discriminated against, and other people have gotten unjust gains as a result. So now we're going to undo it by reverse racism. And he says, The remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination, the remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. So...

ignore meaning? I mean, you point out that it's, you know, this is social justice versus biblical justice, which I think is really how believers need to be looking at this and saying, wait a minute, are we going to use some weird theory of these people today? Are we going to use the Bible as our guide for how to treat each other in biblical Justice says you treat everybody the same.

have done. And obviously he looks at the circumstances of those crimes, but he looks at the behavior, and he should treat people who are in the same situation the same. College admissions should do the same. And that's... The fact that the Lord is not a respecter of persons is one of the most well attested verses and facts in the scriptures, that there is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, we are all one

in Christ Jesus. And there should be one law for he who is the native born and he was a stranger and a sojourner. That's

And no Christian should go along with that, even if it's guised under the idea of anti discrimination.

color of skin, whatever. When you try to level the playing field, in an admissions system like that, you put people at actually at a disadvantage plus you make them and I think D'souza was the one that... Dinesh D'souza had that book a Illiberal Education back in the 90s. And it was actually my law school class that the Hopwood case was based on. That was my 91 admission into UT was where that case came from or might have been a year later. Anyway, all that to say, I mean, it

really does... It's bad for everybody. Not only is it unfair, it's just it creates an environment where you're looking at each other going, are you here because you're a country boy? Are you here because you're black or brown or white or whatever color of skin, instead of Okay, everybody got in on merit, that means we're here to compete based on merit. It

just... D'souza was right all those years ago in that book, and we're, man, we're living with the negatives of it, but like you said, at least the court got it mostly right here. We're headed in the right

direction. I'm like you I think, you know they'll... these universities will drive a Mack truck through that little loophole that John Roberts left them, but overall extremely good and really want people to read the article and think about this biblical justice versus socialist justice and thoroughly enjoyed having you, man. I'm sorry I filibustered a couple times here. I just, I'm excited about what you guys are doing at Washington Stand, look forward

to getting you back. And thank you for being a voice of truth out there. That gives the detail and the depth on that truth as well. Good stuff, man.

often, no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impact in the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need. Patriots Academy was created to meet that need. Patriots Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America, in the halls of Congress and businesses, in the film industry and the pulpit, in every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively an impact in the world around them.

Patriots Academy is now expanding across the nation, and now is your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world. Visit PatriotsAcademy.com for dates and locations. Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adults. So visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at PatriotAcademy.com .

We're back here on WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us. Thanks to Ben Johnson for joining us today as well. Back with David and Tim, and love the analysis of the decision. But even more I love the biblical perspective on so many of these issues. You know we talked about this, just the importance of everything, not just some things in our life, but everything coming with a biblical worldview. Yesterday, with Tony Perkins talking about getting back in God's word getting

saturated in God's word. Imagine guys, what's that verse I've heard you quot it many times, David and Isaiah, about, you know, I'll give you lawyers at the beginning, judges at the first, then you'll become a righteous city, I might have that backwards on lawyers and judges. But the whole idea that we have to have justice, to be the city on a hill, to be the righteous city, and we see some of that being restored here.

And we look at things and feel sympathy and feel well that's not good, so let's do something wrong. Let's break a common principle in order to make up for the wrong that was done. And you don't fix one wrong but creating another wrong. And so I love the comment that was made that what affirmative action has done is it results in not putting the best players on the field. And I was thinking about that in so many areas of life.

As a nation, do we feel better about ourself, if we say, you know, I don't think SEAL Team Six should have the best people on the field. I think it should be we need one woman, we need one black, we need one white we need one Native American, and doesn't matter how good they are. We just want that diversity, so it looks good. That would not make a safe nation. We wouldn't tolerate that with our own sports teams, whatever football or baseball or

basketball team we've got. If they said well, you know, we're going to put some are better players on the bench because we need to have a different appearance on the... No! the bottom line is you need to win. And to do that affirmative action just didn't give us that chance. And I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago on good news Friday, but Justice Sotomayor actually made the point in her

dissent. She dissented from treating everybody equal because she said I would not even be on the Supreme Court if it hadn't been for affirmative action, because my scores weren't high enough. I wasn't smart enough. I couldn't do it. And you got wait a minute you're trying to convince us that it's a good deal to have people on the court who are not as smart as can be. That's not a good argument. But that's the result that they get.

And so they're looking for outcome and you don't get outcome by violating principles. And I think they at least get back to the core principle that you don't look at external superficial characteristics. But of course, Roberts did leave the door open that they can come back and look at it later, which is not a good deal. But generally, I think they went in the right direction for sure.

What's so fascinating is literally Peter stepped up and said, Man, I just want you to die. I want to save your life. Peter had a really, really good heart. But it wasn't God's heart. And I think one of the things we have to be careful of too, in culture is it's easy at times, to think we're doing a really good thing, because our motives are good, but it might not be the right thing. Good is

not always right. And it's very similar when Adam and Eve were in the garden and Eve looked at to the fruit and saw it was good to the eye. Good is not always right. And there's things at times that look like it can be good. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, because good can be subjective. And I think it's one of the realities we've seen, the outcomes of affirmative action, it's something that might have looked really good, but it's it's not something that was right, and

it's had a negative outcome. So ultimately, I think it's very good news that the Supreme Court came out saying that you cannot use race as a top standard in determining who comes to your school. That's good that we're saying let's not be racist in what we're doing.