Higher ed: Skirting Court’s Race-Quota Ban

The Supreme Court ban on “race-based affirmative action was expected to change elite universities’ demographics substantially,” yet “several top universities, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Penn, and Duke, have seen little to none of the expected shift in the racial composition,” reports Matthew Liley at City Journal.

Universities “are either breaking the law,” or they misled the Supreme Court when “they declared race-neutral methods insufficient to achieve their diversity goals.”

One way they may have maintained their racial demographics is via “diversity targets” — i.e., “awarding applicants bonus points based on socioeconomic factors.” Another, more sinister, possible reason: “Their admissions officers are ignoring the ruling” and still considering race by pushing “race-neutral admissions policies that are neutral in name only.”

From the right: NY’s Deceptive ‘Abortion’ Law

“New York state Democrats are using the political salience of abortion” to push woke madness, argues James Lynch at National Review.

Proposal 1 — also known as the New York Equal Rights Amendment — would implement a “sweeping expansion of the state constitution’s equal-protection clause” via “vague and all-encompassing language” around race, national origin and gender.

It “would allow progressive groups to pursue litigation to erode parental rights, permitting confused children to receive puberty blockers without parental consent and enabling males to play sports against women and girls.”

It would also “defang efforts to enforce immigration law and could even be used to help illegal immigrants gain access to welfare benefits.”

In other words, it would “codify the most extreme elements” of left-wing ideology into the state Constitution.

Foreign desk: Israeli Left Cheers Hits on Hez

“The Israeli left is as eager to obliterate Iran-sponsored terror as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is,” cheers Tunku Varadarajan at The Wall Street Journal.

Take Gilad Kariv, who “founded the Knesset caucus for Renewing the Negotiations and Promoting the Two-State Solution.”

He insists “the murderous events of Oct. 7 haven’t shaken his ‘long-term commitment’ to a two-state solution,” yet he “says his goal of a sovereign Palestinian entity should be understood as ‘the end state’ of a long and exacting political and security process.”

In the long run, a two-state solution is “a necessary solution if we want to keep Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

But “the elimination of [Hezbollah’s Hassan] Nasrallah” is “a necessary first step toward a future solution.”

Media watch: ‘Biased’ Debate Hosts — Again

The two moderators who were chosen for Tuesday’s debate between GOP veep pick J.D. Vance and the Dems’ Tim Walz have long been “heavily biased CBS broadcasters,” fumes The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard.

“According to the latest study of media bias by Media Research Center’s watchdog outlet, ‘NewsBusters,’ 85% of CBS coverage has been pro-Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris, while 81%” has been critical of Vance and former President Donald Trump.

Specifically, moderators — managing editor Norah O’Donnell and Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan — have a “long anti-Trump record,” the study, by Rich Noyes, found.

“In a similar survey before the Trump-Harris debate, Noyes found that host ABC was biased in favor of Harris, and the post-debate criticism of the moderators proved that.”

Libertarian: Subsidizing Hurricane Risk-Takers

While FEMA is “helping survivors in flood-stricken regions,” its National Flood Insurance Program is “perversely” incentivizing Americans “to reside in these high-risk areas,” laments Reason’s Jack Nicastro.

Without NFIP-subsidized insurance, rates would increase, becoming unaffordable for some homeowners.

Yet, “unaffordability is a feature of insurance markets, not a bug. High insurance rates discourage risky behavior,” like living in flood zones.

By contrast, “artificially lowering insurance rates deprives homeowners of the very information that indicates the risk of such devastation.”

The solution: “Stop subsidizing NFIP and allow its more than 50 partnered insurance companies to set rates that fully reflect the risk of extreme weather events like Hurricane Helene.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board