THE MORNING RANT: Case Filed with Supreme Court Addresses if Civil Rights Act of 1964 Applies to Discrimination Against Whites (and this case is personal)

Does Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance - protect white individuals from racial discrimination, in addition to protecting minorities? The Supreme Court may soon weigh in.

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court (e.g. a request for the Supreme Court to hear the case) in the matter of Brooks Warden versus the Austin Independent School District (“AISD”). Brooks is being represented by the Center for American Liberty, which was founded by Harmeet Dhillon. This is the same Harmeet Dhillon who was just confirmed a few days ago by the U.S. Senate as the new Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Also on Brooks’ legal team is attorney Ilya Shapiro. They constitute some nice legal firepower

Before I go any further, I’d like to note that as important as this case is for the country, it’s also a bit personal to me, because the minor - just 12 years old at the time - who was the victim of institutional racial oppression at taxpayer funded public schools is also the son of personal friends of mine. I became friends with Monte and Brandi Warden not because of politics, but because of shared musical interests. However, when Monte, Brandi, my wife, and I met for coffee recently, the SCOTUS filing involving their son was obviously a major source of discussion.

This is a case the Supreme Court needs to hear, and I am proud to use my forum here at Ace of Spades HQ to advocate for it being accepted by the Supremes. The greater the awareness and visibility of this case, then perhaps there is a greater likelihood it will be heard at the highest court in the land. It is preposterous that 61 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, there are still school districts that tolerate racial discrimination against students at the hands of their faculty.

Rather than re-summarize the circumstances, I am going to quote from a few sources and also link to Brooks’ and Monte’s recent appearance on the Dr. Phil show to discuss this case.

First, here is a summary of the situation by Brooks Warden’s father, Monte:

Some of y'all know that Brooks has a case currently being considered before The United States Supreme Court. Brooks and I recently sat down with Dr. Phil in an exclusive one-on-one primetime interview to discuss the details of the case.

Briefly, Brooks has endured this nine years (and counting) long case against AISD that involves abuse, bullying, and discrimination beginning when he was a 12-year old child in 2016 - simply for being a little boy who supported Donald Trump. The 2016 election kicked off a four-year campaign of hostility and abuse, discrimination, and harassment over his race, faith, and viewpoints that spanned three separate principals and two campuses (O. Henry MS and Austin High) culminating with a beating and a death-threat in 2020. The crux of the case is this gross mistreatment was not just from students but was LED BY THE GROWN UPS (teachers, administrators, principals). If you're wondering, these are NOT 'alleged instances' - AISD has NEVER disputed ANYTHING they, or anyone, did to Brooks in his complaint.

I ask you to please remember when you think of Brooks as this thriving 21-year old man now, that these people came after an innocent little boy.

Y'all know I never bring politics to my work or music - still don't and won't - MY politics are irrelevant here (and don't assume you know what they are) - even Brooks' politics are irrelevant - the ONLY people whose politics ARE relevant are those who feel they needed to express and defend their ideology by abusing a child. This is NOT just a political issue either, but also discrimination that involved Brooks' race AND faith at every turn. That's against the law. You see friends, there is NO reverse discrimination - only discrimination - and it's ALWAYS wrong – it’s especially despicable when grown-ups do this to a child.

I gotta tell you, its amazing when you wake up one mornin' and realize your youngest son is the bravest man you've ever known. Brooks has stayed in a fight most would have never had the courage to ever begin or wage. He has literally shed his own blood doing so. Brandi and I proudly stand with him.

How the Hell do we need The United States Supreme Court to step in and tell people, you can't abuse/humiliate/discriminate against/harass a little boy? - EVER. FOR. ANY. REASON.

There is much more, as detailed in this Federalist piece from February, “Texan Allegedly Bullied By School Over His Skin Color, Trump Support Asks Supreme Court To Take His Case” and in the Dr. Phil video embedded further below.

Among the abuses claimed by Brooks were a teacher calling him a racial slur; the Principal mocking Brooks and accusing him of listening to Dixie while wearing a headset; the Student Council President circulating a picture of Brooks as a Klansman; another student promising to kill Brooks and all Trump supporters; and a student beating Brooks up in a classroom while the teacher watched. That student is later alleged to have boasted about assaulting Brooks because of his race. As Brooks’ father documented above, the Austin Independent School District never disputed or refuted any of this, they just chose to ignore the Wardens’ pleas to make it stop.

The school district subsequently chose to ignore legal demands until the case escalated to the 5th Circuit Court, which held an en banc hearing at which the AISD finally acknowledged that they “regret” what happened to Brooks Warden. The court’s ruling was a 9-9 split, favoring neither party, and the case has now been filed at the Supreme Court.

For you legal eagles, the actual Supreme Court petition is at this link, which includes the following quote:

Finally, as Judge Ho discussed in his en banc dissent below, societal acceptance of racism against white individuals is a national issue of growing concern. The acquiescence to—and, in some cases, celebration of—overt racist acts toward white people is a troubling feature of our culture that has become all too common. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act to eliminate race-based discrimination within its ambit in its entirety. In so doing, Congress did not intend to limit its protections only to non-whites. As Judge Ho explained below, dismissing Brooks’s complaint as implausible is yet another example of this growing—and disturbing—trend. The en banc Fifth Circuit’s failure to reach even a bare majority as to the correct standard for racial harassment claims under Title VI reflects the need for this Court’s intervention. If allowed to stand, the decisions below will sow further confusion among the lower federal courts, and Brooks will be denied the opportunity to hold AISD accountable for its discrimination against him.

This Dr. Phil interview of Brooks and Monte Warden is well worth your time. I encourage you to watch it. You’ll also see what a decent young man Brooks Warden is.

Let’s all hope that the Supreme Court takes this case and finally ends the nasty institutional racism that continues to fester in this country. As Monte Warden stated, ”there is no reverse discrimination - only discrimination - and it's always wrong.”

[buck.throckmorton at protonmail dot com]

posted by Buck Throckmorton at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments