AA Ends But Hate Begins: Supreme Court Ruling Has Lead To Attacks On This Group Accusing Them Of Being 'Tools Of White Supremacists'

The decision has also led to attacks on Asian Americans, with some accusing them of being tools of White supremacists.

Edward Blum, founder and president of Students for Fair Admissions, expressed his concerns about the ruling, stating, "It now appears that Asians are 'white adjacent' rather than legitimate minorities.

The work of civil rights advocates is to protect every individual, regardless of their race."

Soledad O'Brien, former CNN host, engaged in a heated exchange with Yiatin Chu, president of the Asian Wave Alliance, who celebrated the overturning of affirmative action.

O'Brien accused Chu of "screwing over other people of color" and disregarding the efforts of those who fought for civil rights.

Jemele Hill, a personality from The Atlantic, also criticized Chu, accusing her of carrying the water for White supremacy and betraying the Asian American community.

An NPR article, which conservatives have criticized as an "embarrassment," framed Asians as instruments of a White conservative agenda to dismantle affirmative action.

The article referred to Asians as representing the "model minority myth" and quoted liberal voices who claimed that Asians were a "mask for White privilege."

These viewpoints were met with criticism, with podcast host Katie Herzog sarcastically tweeting, "Asians against Affirmative Action are not hard [to] find. You'd think they'd ask at least one to weigh in before proclaiming them dupes."

NBC News also published an article shortly after the Supreme Court decision, quoting a left-wing Asian-American advocacy group that described the plaintiffs as "pawns" of "White supremacist agendas." The article highlighted the divisive nature of the ruling and the differing opinions within the Asian American community.

The Supreme Court ruled that admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the 14th Amendment. Kenny Xu, a board member for Students for Fair Admissions, which was the plaintiff in the cases, criticized progressives for their fixation on race.

Xu stated, "The left in general does not value merit. So when you see a group that is successful, you have to explain it.

And the left has created this explanation that, well, because Asian-Americans are successful in our country disproportionately, including higher than average education rates and income, they must be somehow aligned with White supremacy, right?

Because the left's paradigm is White supremacy, so if you're successful, that means you have to be somehow associated with the rich, White, privileged elite."

The NPR article extensively quoted liberal viewpoints to attack Edward Blum, a conservative activist who led the litigation against Harvard and North Carolina.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) accused Blum of crafting attacks on civil rights. Blum defended his actions, stating, "Significant majorities of Americans of all races and ethnicities believe that one's race should not be a factor in college admissions, employment decisions, jury selection, and many other areas of our lives.

My legal activities are focused on restoring the original principles of the civil rights movement."

Blum became acquainted with Harrison Chen, one of the parties to the suit, after Chen was rejected from Harvard despite having impeccable academic credentials.

Blum noticed Chen's writings at Vanderbilt University, where he discussed what he believed to be unfair standards in college admissions.

This is not the first time Blum has been involved in a high-profile affirmative action case. In 2016, the Supreme Court rejected Abigail Fisher's claim that the University of Texas had denied her admission due to her race.

Blum led that case as well. Xu acknowledged the significance of having Asian plaintiffs in the Harvard and North Carolina cases, as it reflected the truth of the situation. He argued that in an increasingly diverse society, it is essential to treat people based on merit rather than their skin color.

The Harvard case centered around whether the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Asian-American applicants. The University of North Carolina case examined the school's refusal to adopt a "race-neutral alternative."

According to an ABC News/Ipsos survey, 52% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn race-based school admissions, while 32% disapprove of the ruling.

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that a student's benefit from affirmative action should be tied to their individual experiences and achievements, rather than their race.

The justices considered two separate legal challenges against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, examining their admissions criteria and whether they discriminated against Asian-American applicants.

The universities argue that their admissions standards aim to create a diverse and intellectually vibrant campus. However, a coalition of Asian American students claims that the criteria impose a "racial penalty" on them, holding them to a higher standard than Black and Hispanic students.