Justice Jackson Accused of Second False Claim in Affirmative Action Dissent

Supreme Court Photographer Fred Schilling, 2022.

We previously discussed how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson included a false claim to support her dissent in the Court’s recent opinion barring racial discrimination in college admissions. Now, the justice is accused of a second false claim derived from the same source: the amicus brief of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Notably, however, the media is still citing the first error as proof that race-blind admissions will kill Black citizens.

In her prior error, Jackson claimed that affirmative action has been shown to “save lives” by allowing black doctors to give better care for black people than white doctors.

“It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

Experts immediately objected that the claim was wildly off base. AAMC later asked the Court to correct the claim, though many objected that it still did not fully address the scope of the false claim. Ted Frank who previously noted that the study itself was flawed in relying on a linear regression given the small group analysis. He responded to the correction on Twitter by noting:

“The particular specification the authors and AAMC highlight fails to account for the fact that black doctors are much less likely to be neonatologists, who get the higher risk cases. The number is much smaller when there’s a partial attempt to control for this. And, as the op-ed noted, the logit model hidden in the back of the appendix found that black doctors had a higher mortality rate overall. The study is not grounds for racial discrimination, and the paper doesn’t dare to claim that skin color saves lives.”

I will leave these details to those with a better statistical handle on these studies. However, even after AAMC corrected or “clarified” its error, the media is still citing the original claim.

In Time, senior correspondent Janelle Ross recently wrote a piece on how the ban on racial discrimination in admissions would kill Black citizens: “I write this with no hyperbole intended. Some of us are probably going to die.” She then cites Jackson’s claim that “for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.” This is part of what Ross insists is an effort to get “away from the ecosphere where alarmist conservative information outlets assign continued white dominance oxygen-like importance.”

Ross then cited the second claim as dispositive proof that race blindness will kill blacks. In her dissent to Students for Fair Admissions, Jackson wrote, “research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly.” This included “prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication.”

However, critics object that none of the four studies cited by AAMC support that claim. They reportedly explore problems of Black patients in dealing with pain management, but do not examine the relative efficacy of doctors of different races. They further note that AAMC has pushed DEI policies, including the use of race in faculty appointments and admissions to medical schools. These claims are used to justify the use of race as a criterion.

A review of the studies seems to confirm the objections. For example, the first study cited was Kelly M. Hoffman et al., Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites, 113 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Scis. 4296, 4298-30 (2016). However, that study focused on how “false beliefs” can impact the community, though it did find that half of a sample of white medical students and residents endorsed some of these false beliefs.

The second study is Monika K. Goyal et al., Racial Disparities in Pain Management of Children with Appendicitis in Emergency Departments, 169 JAMA Pediatr. 996, 998-999 (2015). However, that study deals with racial disparities in use of analgesia in emergency departments and does not focus on the race of the doctors.

The third study is Karn O. Anderson et al., Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain: Causes and Consequences of Unequal Care, 10 J. Pain 1187, 1198 (2009). This study, however, is a review of recent literature on racial and ethnic disparities in pain on reducing and eliminating disparities in pain. Again, the focus is on the treatment levels, not the race of the treating physicians.

The final study is C.S. Cleeland et al., Pain and Treatment of Pain in Minority Patients With Cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Minority Outpatient Pain Study, 127 Annals Intern. Med. 813, 815 (1997).  Again, the study focuses on the continued failure to offer adequate pain control and suggested new approaches to the control of cancer-related pain in this patient population.

As shown by these studies, there are obviously serious concerns over the health care for the Black community with higher rates of mortality in some areas and concerns over access to medical treatment. However, these statistical claims are being offered as evidence that the race of doctors is driving some of these differences. The selective use of such studies can often play to confirmation bias in crafting opinions.

For academics, even raising exaggerated or false claims can be perilous. Most professors do not want to be tagged in a cancel campaign or declared hostile to diversity. Conversely, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently allowed North Carolina State University to move to fire a professor as “uncollegial” in his criticism of diversity policies. The opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker will hopefully be reviewed by the full court or the Supreme Court because it could gut not just protections of free speech, but academic freedom.

Sweeping claims of systemic racism are often made with little scrutiny in law schools and other departments. The risks are simply too high in the current environment. There is a new orthodoxy that has taken hold of higher education and the media with little tolerance for opposing views.

What is striking is that these errors are coming from the largest organization representing medical schools. As I discussed earlier, it is another example of the perils of so-called “Brandeis briefs” where amici dump studies into the record.

Before joining the court, Justice Louis Brandeis filed such a brief in his brilliant challenge to work place conditions. It is now a common feature in briefing of cases as groups and associations push studies as determinative or substantial evidence on one side or another. My opposition to the brief is that the justices are in a poor position to judge the veracity or accuracy of such studies. They simply pick and choose between rivaling studies to claim a definitive factual foundation for an opinion. It produces more of a legislative environment for the court as different parties insert data to support their own view of what is a better policy or more serious social problem. There is only a limited ability of parties to challenge such data given limits on time and space in briefing.

The result is that major decisions or dissents can be built on highly contested factual assertions. Clearly, Justice Jackson would have still maintained her defense of race-based criteria in admissions even without such statistical evidence. Moreover, she is not the only justice to make contested claims in recent opinions. However, it is also indicative of how these dubious statistical claims can be used to justify or challenge major legal doctrines.

101 thoughts on “Justice Jackson Accused of Second False Claim in Affirmative Action Dissent”

  1. So going by what this airhead ignorant non biologist, black doctors will kill a bunch of white folks because they don’t “understand” white patients?

  2. Professor, this is not a criticism, but rather an observation. Using capital “B” in the word “black” as you do through much of this article — while never using it for the word “white” — is a subliminal acquiescence to one aspect of the subtle racial tyranny we are now battling. I note that your capitalization is inconsistent: proof positive of how difficult is the unwitting linguistic struggle. That’s how they get us. Once we slide into according nobility to “Blackness,” or to anybody because of his “Color,” we’ve taken another backwards step towards the corner.

    1. And if Professor Turley had not capitalized the word black in his article, he would have been labeled a racist. And if he had capitalized the word white then he would have been a “white supremacist.” These people are blinded by race and filled with rage. The demons of hell are having a field day in our nation.

      1. Yes, which is why the only way to battle this is to swell our chests and burst the chains of leftist psychological tyranny, and dispense with kowtowing to the left’s lies — any or all of them — and call them out on each and every subtle linguistic affront. If all races are lower-case, that’s egalitarian. If one race is capitalized, that’s ipso facto rayciss. Logic is unbending: break them with logic and with empirical fact, and d@mn the consequences. And this of course applies across the entire sweep of western civilization these irrational maniacs are trying to upend. We’ve gotta tell ’em: the sun rises in the east every morning: men can’t have babies; the earth is round. Let’s start there with them and help them relearn sanity. Their awful fantasies will fall, one way or another, someday

    1. She should recuse herself or have recusal imposed on her in any race-related case and precluded from ever using statistics to support her legal position.

    2. Of course, they all know what a woman is … Blackburn’s questioning was inept; Jackson’s answer was over-the-top disingenuous … and the whole thing was meant pretend to let someone ask her a question and for her to pretend to answer and slip away. “Judge, President Cho Bai Den promised to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, did he not?” “He did.” “And he appointed you, did he not?” “He did.” “And are you a black?” “I am.” “And are you a woman?” Seems like checkmate to me. But the last thing these equivocating eels want to do is pin down another equivocating eel. And so she now sits on the court, and will be there to hurt us for decades.

  3. When I look at a doctor who has benefitted from affirmative action, I will be always be suspicious of his or her competence. It doesn’t matter if the affirmative action was designed to benefit people who are members of certain families, people with political connections, or people of a certain race.

    1. the American Medical Association (AMA) and American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)

      The AMA could not possibly be more irrelevant to physicians. Truly, no one mentions the AMA in my day to day work. No one. The AMA journal (JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association) published a piece yesterday on “disinformation”. It is a free link. I read the headline in my issue via email, and rolled my eyes. So I read the article online. The authors are 2 elitist physicians who do not see patients but are executives for “patient advocacy” organizations. Their opinion piece defended the Biden admin in censoring opposing views, and used the usual fear mongering, panic porn talking points of the Left regarding “health disparities”. Not surprisingly the 2 authors are executives, one for a California state university funded “equity” organization, and the other is the CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), a tax exempt organization, who earns > $850K/year simply for his salaried job. Internal Medicine physicians do not make that kind of money. He is not even a specialist physician but just a run of the mill internal medicine doc, who has served as CEO for 10 years of the ABIM.

      PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3620 | TAX-EXEMPT SINCE DEC. 1946

      Key Employees and Officers Compensation


      Yet, here they are lecturing physicians while having a guaranteed source of income. Those in power have no desire to engage in constructive, evidence based dialogue, but rather rule over others with impunity, and enjoy persecuting serfs who do not submit to their dogmas.

      The way out of this, as individuals, is to be successful at whatever station one has in life. Be the best spouse, parent, grandparent, mentor, business owner, lawn maintenance technician, student, whatever it takes to influence others and control your destiny. Let the dead bury the dead. We see obstacles when we take our eyes off of the prize. The best way to address the many injustices of life is to be successful as an individual. We all have that potential and opportunity. Tempus fugit.

      1. What do you call a candidate that is last in his class at Medical school? …Doctor of course!

  4. I was raised to believe that we are all the same under the skin. Since Covid though there’s been a huge push to make people believe that black people are measurably different than every other race. They’ve worked hard to convince us that black people have different pain tolerance and that what is normal for every other race is racist for them. If they hadn’t worked so hard to just isolate black people from every other race, they might be more believable. What is really amazing though is that black people aren’t arguing that they are no different than the rest of humanity. They want to be seen as different. Why?

    1. Dear Ms. Rand – I appreciate what you’re saying but the grievance racket has been going on for half a century, long before covid.

  5. Wow. Now she *is* a scientist. She couldn’t tell a Senate committee what a woman was, though. Imagine all the issues dealing with women. (jobs, sports, transgender males, etc.) And she can’t touch the topic because she doesn’t even know what a woman *is*.

  6. Professor Turley,

    This article doesn’t make much sense. The first study you link to finds that “white medical students and residents who endorsed false beliefs showed racial bias in the accuracy of their pain treatment recommendations.” For reference, half of those medical professionals tested exhibited at least one “false belief.” The study found that “participants who endorsed more of these beliefs reported a black (vs. white) target patient would feel less pain and they were less accurate in their treatment recommendations for the black (vs. white) patient. The conclusion: “those endorsing more false beliefs rated the pain of a black (vs. white) patient half a scale point lower and were less accurate in their treatment recommendations 15% of the time.”


    You note that half of the sample of medical students and residents endorsed false beliefs, but you failed to recognize their conclusion that this, in fact, was correlated with a measurable level of inaccuracy in treatment recommendations.

    Justice Jackson’s quote thus correctly summarizes their are racial disparities in treatment recommendations based on the racial background of the medical professional (which is correlated with the “false belief” measurement). So, how is this inaccurate?

    The FIRST study you cited refutes the basis for this entire article. Did you actually read the study, or are you simply parroting others?

    1. Dear ‘Anpnymous’ I must conclude that Your Rebuttal – which I read several times- ‘doesn’t make much sense.’ The Bottom-line is your tendency – like Justice Jackson – to make sweeping judgements based on small spot studies, an attitude, which Prof. Turley rightly pointed out, leads to erroneous conclusions. Further, you consistently transpose the studies’ conclusions to Prof. Turley’s conclusions… which makes no sense. Nice try.

      1. The study surveyed 418 medical students and residents. How big should the sample size be to escape a label of a “spot study”?

        Turley regularly writes about polls that have a smaller sample size. So even if this were a reasonable critique, it would not be consistent.

        I did not transpose the study’s conclusions to Turley. I just called out how he could possibly write this article, which purports to suggest that no cited studies support Jackson’s claim when the first one he references does.

  7. If Dems / media really cared about the quality of medical care received by African Americans, they would first avoid politicizing the topic, and then keep the topic meritocratic and non-partisan. It’s so obvious that is not their primary concern…it’s posturing as saviors of black Americans while demonizing anyone who has a differing idea. Disgusting, and very unflattering to Justice Jackson. I hope she learns from this episode.

  8. Sonia and Ketanji = two ‘affirmative action hire’ peas in a pod.
    Unfortunately, to the detriment of the country, neither of them should be on the Supreme Court.

  9. The book “Medical Apartheid” by Harriet Washington may prove Justice Jackson correct.

    The book includes more recent medical abuses of African-Americans, where federal agencies hired former Nazi doctors after World War Two.

    Federal and state tax dollars were used by government funded hospitals to harm and even kill African-American patients. Using them as non-consenting guineau pigs.

    It’s highly unlikely black doctors would harm or kill black patients. Jackson was speaking truth but maybe left out this reference.

    1. Yes, every federal policy in place in 1947 is still in place today.

      How stupid can one person be?

  10. Note that the 2nd study did not find ANY “racial differences” in its bivariate analysis, so had to keep digging to “find” something
    The 4th avoided that “problem” by not running any comparisons with non-black cancer patients

    Do doctors fail to adequately control pain for black cancer patients? Well, they fail to adequately control it for everyone else, so I expect they do so for black patients as well.

    But that doesn’t should that black patients are being poorly treated because they’re black, it shows that all patients are being poorly treated because of the Federal Gov’ts jihad against pain relief

    1. Thank you! THIS is the actual issue going on; that ALL patients are being treated poorly because of the Fed. Gov’ts war on genuine pain relief.

      1. So true! Legitimate pain doctors are being sued for prescribing FDA-approved doses their patients then abuse by either taking too many or with other non-prescribed ‘pharmaceuticals’. Too many good doctors being put in a ‘no-win’ situation and end up leaving that type of care. The only people that suffer (besides the doctors) are their patients who can’t find legal pain relief.

  11. Turley’s basic premise is, itself, badly flawed. There was CRITICISM of some studies–the one on black infant mortality, because critics claimed there were fewer black neonatologists who treat the sickest newborns, who supposedly have a higher risk of mortality–but does the paucity of black neonatologists necessarily invalidate the findings–or, is this just an argument that more specific studies are needed? To Turley it it proves that Justice Jackson as a liar becaise he’s paid to say so. CRITICISM of a study does not equate to FALSITY of its findings, which is what Turley is trying to claim–just look at the disparity in the title of this piece–he calls Justice Jackson’s claims “false”, but in the body of the piece, all he comes up with is criticism of the studies she cites, and then admits that he doesn’t have the scientific chops to evaluate them. That’s disingenuous, Turley.

    Turley cites criticism of studies involving black neonatal deaths. In fact, almost any study involving mortality statistics is fundamentally flawed because we don’t divide people into groups and provide care to one group and refuse care to another group when there is an effective treatment, just to see how the statistics play out. One exception to this is the Tuskeegee syphilis study, in which black men infected with syphilis were denied effective antibiotic treatment just to see what sorts of symptoms they would get as their infections progresed. Very few survived, and those that did had serious debilitating conditions. Justice Jackson believes that black doctors are more empathetic to black patients–including properly assessing pain and better care to newborns, and she may well be right. Her point is that the black community needs more black physicians whom she believes can relate better to black patients. Who can say she’s wrong?

    It’s truly noteworthy that of all the Justices on the SCOTUS, the only one with whom Turley finds fault is Justice Jackson, and that, of itself, says something. Setting aside the unprecedented reversal of Roe, which found a Constitutional right to abortion to the age of fetal viability, he has yet to speak a word about Clarence Thomas and Alito and the lavish gifts they accepted but failed to report, that came from litigants with business before the SCOTUS. He is mum about Ginni Thomas and her direct involvement in Jan 6th, or the fact that her husband did not recuse himself from consideration of whether email from his wife should be turned over to the J6 committee–his was the only dissent of the SCOTUS that ordered the emails to be produced..

    But, as usual, today’s piece is just more red meat for the disciples–Justice Jackson, appointed by Biden, is a liar–that’s the reason for this piece–politics.

    1. “There was CRITICISM of some studies–the one on black infant mortality, because critics claimed there were fewer black neonatologists who treat the sickest newborns, who supposedly have a higher risk of mortality–but does the paucity of black neonatologists necessarily invalidate the findings–or, is this just an argument that more specific studies are needed?”

      It is solid proof that the “study” is garbage.
      Which you would realize if you know ANYTHING at all about the subject, or were approaching from a position of honesty rather than political activism


    2. The study itself didn’t find that twice as many black infants died when their doctor was not black. I fault anyone with half a brain for accepting that assertion without looking into it further but it seems as though even Supreme Court justices can accept outlandish findings when it’s just too good to fact-check. Accepting as valid the study’s numbers, there was only a fraction of a percent difference in the outcomes between the two groups of babies, which makes the findings statistically insignificant.

      1. rigeldog – I’ve worked as law clerk to a judge before, albeit not at the Supreme Court level. But even at our level we had enough spidey-sense to not let something that bizarre slip by. There is no way I or my fellow clerks would have let our judge publish an opinion with such an assertion, at least not without vigorous objections. Our take would have been: this claim can’t be true, it’s too outlandish, so let’s examine it carefully to see what’s wrong with it. Either Justice Jackson’s clerks have less common sense, which I find hard to believe, or she overrode their advice.

        1. As an attorney with a lot of trial and appellate experience I would never have accepted this sort of “fact” in a report or a brief. But it’s so outlandish on its face that I would expect anyone with two brain cells to question it.

          1. rigeldog: –But are the “two brain cells” XY or XX?
            Justice Jackson clearly said she was not qualified to know, so cut her some slack, ha ha

    3. Why yes Gigi,
      The patient in the neonatal wards were well aware of their surroundings and the doctor’s skin color thus they didn’t respond as well because the doctors were white and had they been black, they would have responded better.

      Sorry, but that’s the nonsense that had been spewed by many who believe this tripe.
      (Neonatal patients are newborns (premature infants) where they have no clue about their surroundings)

      So they have no clue as to the color of the skin… assuming that there is any real amount of skin exposed except in the face not covered by surgical masks and that wouldn’t be in focus assuming that the eyes would be open in the first place.

      But hey! don’t let facts get in the way of a good tirade.


      1. Ian: newborns don’t hire their doctors–parents do. The point is that black physicians may provide better care to black infants. You cannot deny that racism has been and still is an issue in this country. And, your theory that a newborn’s awareness of his/her physician’s race means anything is nonsense. But then, you believe the Big Lie.

        1. Didn’t the analysis say the worst cases were not given to black doctors because they couldn’t handle it, and thus in the affirmative action way the black doctors got the easy cases. Thus, “the survival rate” was better.
          Maybe you should be screaming you want to know why black doctors are not expert enough for difficult cases, or maybe it’s black privilege, the black doctors get most of the easy cases and none of the hard ones, because they are so privileged, more free time then, less issues with the patients, and a happier life. Maybe the black doctors should stop being so privileged.

        2. “You cannot deny that racism has been and still is an issue in this country.”

          And will get worse, so long as the Left peddles racist notions such as this:

          “The point is that black physicians may provide better care to black infants.”

          “Science” framed by the genetic makeup of the “scientist.” Haven’t we seen that horror before?

          1. Sam: you just don’t get it–do you? You probably wouldn’t understand why many women prefer a female physician, both for primary care but also for gyn care, and especially for female-related cancers. Why? As one example: because another woman is in a better position to understand how a mastectomy affects a woman psychologically, and if a lumpectomy, versus total mastectomy, is a viable option why this would be important to her. Another example: because another woman would better understand the demands on a woman who is a mother, caregiver to aged parents, and is also holding down a job, and then comes down with a cancer diagnosis. A female physician could better relate to how difficult chemotherapy might be under the circumstances and ways to work around the demands of her patient’s life. The “Left” isn’t the cause of racism. Why not ask a black person whether they have a preference for a black doctor? If they do, is that racist?

            1. “. . . another woman is in a better position to understand . . .”

              Knowledge and understanding based on one’s genetic makeup. That is the essence of racism, and, as you’ve just illustrated, of sexism. But by all means, continue digging your own grave.

              Incidentally, the particulars of your sexist rant are false — as is shown by the number of male doctors and psychologists who treat those conditions.

    4. What an idiotic reply by a progressive. Is Kentaji, who can’t tell what a woman is now going to claim that black doctors read a thermometer different than a white doctor ? We have excuses the stupidity of progressives for too long.

      1. One last time on the “definition of a woman” matter. There is an over the hill ignoramus bottle blondie from Tennessee, who has a degree in home economics, who tried to bait Justice Jackson, a Harvard graduate and sitting US Court of Appeals judge, by asking her to define “woman”. It was done to create sound bites for alt-right media–because, no matter what her answer, it would provide fodder for culture wars, which is what it was calculated to do–not assess her qualifications to serve. Justice Jackson didn’t take the bait, part of which was calculated to use her definition, if she had given one, in the war against transgender women. Justice Jackson deferred, so now, you alt-right mavens accuse her of not knowing what a “woman” is. That question had nothing whatsoever to do with Justice Jackson’s qualifications to serve on the SCOTUS, and that hag from Tennessee would vote against her no matter what, but is proof of abuse of the Senate Judiciary Committee to promote the alt-right culture wars agenda. All so that someone like you, Budlite, can claim that Justice Jackson is “stupid”.

  12. Affirmative action is fundamentally antithetical.

    Affirmative action is unconstitutional.

    The Constitution, Bill of Rights and America were established and exist in equity.

    Equity is the complete absence of bias and favoritism.

    Affirmative action only affirms inferior and unqualified candidates (i.e. Ketanji Brown Jackson).

    It is not possible that a superior candidate could be generated from a smaller pool of the general population.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson would not be on the U.S. Supreme Court if unconstitutional forced busing, public assistance and affirmative action programs did not illegally exist.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson would likely never have graduated from high school, much less university.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson is an incompetent dependent, beneficiary of welfare redistribution and affirmative action, and effectively a ward of the state.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson is not even sure she is a woman, understanding Ketanji Brown Jackson’s response to Sen. Blackburn’s question, “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?”

    That answer was, “I can’t, not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”

    Ketanji Brown Jackson is not a biologist, she is not a woman, and she damn sure is not a Supreme Court Justice.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson would fail immediately in the absence of public assistance and affirmative action, and in the open, free markets of the private sector where it’s merit that matters.

    The emperoretteress, eminent on a pedestal of public succor, has no clothes.

  13. And yet all of the studies are irrelevant and would be so deemed if the SCOTUS limited itself to its Constitutional role. The Supreme court does not exist to rule on whether a law is right or wrong, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant. The sole authority of the Supreme Court is to rule on whether the law is consistent with the Constitution. Anything beyond that is inappropriate activism.

    1. Which, if the tables were turned and Justice Jackson was in the majority is how cases would be decided. We would have an activist Supreme Court hammering the last nails in America’s coffin.

  14. I am not a black person.
    My ‘people’ were enslaved over 3000 years ago by a country that still exists today — Eqypt.
    I have not demanded reparations be paid with or without 3000 years of accrued interest added.
    Having said that:
    The errors by Justice Jackson speak to her having been appointed based nearly entirely upon her racial heritage, and no one, not James Clyburn, not Joe Biden, not most of the ‘black community’ whoever that really is, dispute it.

    In conclusion, I am glad Professor Turley has brought attention to Jackson’s tenure so far on the Supreme Court.

  15. The Democrat party has always supported laws and practices that treat people differently based on their race.

    In years past, the Democrat party supported race-based slavery, race-based restrictions on voting, race-based restrictions on hiring and career advancement, race-based restrictions on housing, race-based restrictions on eating in restaurants, race-based restrictions on staying in hotels. and race-based restrictions on the use of public transportation.

    In 2023, the Democrat party supports race-based boundaries of congressional districts, race-based restrictions on hiring and career advancement, race-based restrictions on the awarding of government contracts, race-based admissions to colleges, and race-based assignment of students to college dormitories.

Leave a Reply