This is constitutional?

Sex discrimination in educational institutions

Can a women’s college (or a historically black college, or a historically Native American college, or a historically all male college) preferentially hire female (black, Native American, male) faculty?

Can women’s colleges simply not admit men (and can men’s colleges simply not admit women), as was their policy right into the second half of the last century?

Can a historically Catholic (Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jewish) college preferentially hire Catholic (Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jewish) faculty or admit Catholic (Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jewish) students?

Does it matter whether the college is private or public?

Does it matter whether, if private, the school accepts public aid?

What about high schools or other schools for the lower grades?

Kindergarten?

Day care?

And, anyway, sexual harassment is not even remotely a kind of discrimination.

Even if it were, what is the constitutional authority for (a) federal aid to education and (b) a federal prohibition of anything at all not normally or otherwise within federal purview as a condition of aid?

Not everything liberals have done through anti-democratic means, usually involving runaway Supremes, to pervert the constitution to transform America into a country they approve would be endorsed by suitable, legitimating amendments aimed at filling the gap and creating real constitutional authority where it does not actually exist, despite liberal baloney.

Neither via the Article V process nor by any more reasonable, national, and democratic replacement process.

It is entirely likely that Americans would create constitutional legitimacy for nearly all of American social democracy via such a process, given the option.

It is likely they would do the same for the department of education and provision of federal aid to education, as well as a broad program of student loans and other efforts to hold down costs and make access less dependent on private or family wealth.

But it does not seem likely they would support federal efforts to ban men’s colleges or other schools, or women’s schools, or Jewish schools, or Catholic schools, and so on.

For reasons that escape me, the US pretty much just doesn’t worry about fine shades of establishment when we think of federal guaranteed student loans or public scholarships or, say, the GI Bill.

Nor does anyone worry too much that so much of higher education still takes place at private schools and not state colleges or universities.

We save all that fussiness for the High School and below, where liberals are positively fierce about direct or even the most indirect assistance to private, and especially religiously affiliated, schools.

Don’t even start with talk about vouchers.

Our current president, so good a choice in so many ways, is nevertheless wrong, un-American, and even anti-American in his attitude toward church-related schools – though he put that attitude on display in Ireland.

Nothing shows the limits of liberal enthusiasm for diversity as much as this sort of thing.

If diverse means multi-racial and pro-feminist and pro-LGBT they love it.

If it means policies in favor of non-white or Muslim immigration they love it.

If it means acceptance of America’s traditional diversities and diverse traditions, they want out.

I am not sure who they were, but many people as recently as the 1960's took pride in American religious pluralism.

That is a kind of tolerance for diversity that seems no longer in fashion among liberals - again, the exception being Muslims, apparently because of their hostility, globally, toward America and perhaps also because of their more profound hatred for Israel.