Stephen Miller warns schools of lawsuits if they ignore SCOTUS affirmative action ruling

 Former White House adviser Stephen Miller last week warned law schools of possible lawsuits if they ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action issued.

Miller, the president of America First Legal, said Friday that his nonprofit organization sent a letter to the deans of 200 law schools across the country warning of future legal action if they do not heed the court’s ruling.

“Today, we sent a warning letter to the deans of 200 law schools around America, telling them that they must obey the Supreme Court’s ruling, striking down illegal racial discrimination and affirmative action,” Miller said in a video posted to Twitter. “If they tried to violate, circumvent or bypass, subvert or otherwise program around that ruling, we are going to take them to court. We are going to hold them to account.”

The Supreme Court invalidated admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) last week by ruling they did not comply with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

Miller’s organization said in a press release that its letters demand the schools immediately end practices that are in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a letter to John F. Manning, dean of Harvard Law School, Miller wrote that he was warning him “of the consequences that you and your institution will face if you fail to comply with or attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling.”

“There are those within and outside your institutions who will tell you that you can develop an admissions scheme through pretext or proxy to achieve the same discriminatory outcome,” the letter reads. “Anyone telling you such a thing is coaching you to engage in illegal conduct in brazen violation of a Supreme Court ruling, lawbreaking in which you would be fully complicit and thus fully liable.”

Senior officials at Harvard committed to obeying the ruling, saying in a statement that “we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.”

America First Legal Vice President and general counsel Gene Hamilton said in a statement that the organization is “ready to defend the right of any American harmed by these unlawful practices.”

“For too long, rather than being beacons of hope and serving as models of equal treatment under the law, law schools have used discriminatory practices that should offend every American,” Hamilton said. “These practices do not just infect and affect legal academia—they then inculcate generations of lawyers who fail to appreciate the meaning of true equality, fail to advance the rule of law, and who fail to speak truth to power with their clients.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4078821-stephen-miller-warns-schools-of-lawsuits-if-they-ignore-supreme-court-affirmative-action-ruling/

'Almost 1 in 4 people in the US hadn’t gotten COVID by the end of 2022': CDC

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that almost 1 out of 4 people in the U.S. still hadn’t been exposed to COVID-19 by the end of 2022 after nearly three years of the pandemic.

In its final survey looking at the period between October and December 2022, the CDC estimated that about 77.5 percent of people had infection-induced antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The CDC began conducting studies looking into seroprevalence, the presence of antibodies against a virus in someone’s blood, beginning in January 2022. The agency observed seroprevalence in three-month increments over the course of last year.

Broken down by demographics, younger people — aged between 16 and 29 — had the highest percentage of natural antibodies at 87.1 percent, with this percentage decreasing among older groups.

Across racial groups, Hispanic individuals had the highest rate of naturally induced antibodies at 80.6 percent. Black, white and other racial/ethnic groups all shared about the same rate of natural antibodies, around 77 percent.

However, non-Hispanic Asians were found to have significantly lower rates of infection-induced antibodies than the others groups, with 66.1 percent found to have the antibodies. While the CDC did not provide an explanation for this, earlier data had found that Asians in the U.S. had generally lower infection rates.

An analysis released by KFF last year found that Asians had the lowest cumulative infection rate among racial/ethnic groups from 2020 to 2022.

While about 3 out of 4 people carried antibodies from natural infections, nearly all people — 96.7 percent — were found to have some form of COVID-19 antibodies in their systems due to vaccination, infection or a combination of both.

The data needed for the CDC’s study was collected by looking at blood from roughly 143,000 donors within a three-month period.

During the first quarter of 2022 about half of the U.S. had infection-induced antibodies in their blood. The CDC is not currently planning any more seroprevalence studies.

While vaccines also induce the immune system to create antibodies against a virus, a difference between the types of antibodies can be detected through antibody testing, which the CDC previously said could be done for “clinical and public health purposes.”

As researchers from Johns Hopkins University noted in a 2021 study, naturally infected individuals produce antibodies targeting several parts of a virus. The mRNA vaccines that have become widely used to protect against COVID-19 are designed to induce antibodies that look for only the spike proteins on the surface of the virus.

Antibodies are believed to last several months whether from infection or immunization, though some data suggests natural immunity wanes faster than immunity induced through vaccines.

Health officials are aiming to refresh nationwide immunity against COVID-19 this fall, with vaccine manufacturers preparing for a vaccine campaign targeting the XBB 1.5 omicron subvariant. Moderna has already requested authorization for its updated COVID shot.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4079515-cdc-2022-almost-quarter-did-not-get-covid/

Numbers Don't Lie: Corporations Are Realising Going Woke Kills Business

 by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The Wall Street Journal reports that corporations are increasingly backing away from woke policies and stances.

The report notes that a recent Pew Research Center survey found that fewer than one third (32%) of workers believed that working at an ethnically diverse place was “very important” to them, while 38% said it was “not too/not at all important.”

The survey also noted that only a quarter (26%) of workers find an “equal mix of men and women” to be “very important” in the workplace, while 44% said it is not important.

“There are people who say, ‘I really wish we were more diverse,’ and I’ve also seen people say, ‘Stop being so woke,’” Sarah Sharp, a vice president of human resources at Clayton, a home builder based out of Tennessee told the WSJ.

The report also points to a recent Gallup survey that found of 140 heads of human resources, 59% plan to increase their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) budgets in the next year, down from 84% in 2022.

The findings come in the wake of high profile cases such as Bud Light and Target losing upwards of $10 billion for implementing LGBTQ+ campaigns.

Related:

 

 

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/numbers-dont-lie-corporations-are-realising-going-woke-kills-business

Medical nonprofit hits prestigious journal's argument for 'space without White people'

 Over 1,000 medical professionals have signed a petition condemning and demanding an apology from the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for publishing an article arguing for racial segregation in medical education.

The petition, first obtained by Fox News Digital, was organized by Do No Harm, a nonprofit with the stated mission of "protect[ing] health care from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. We believe in making health care better for all — not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda."

Do No Harm is led by its chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 

In a new letter to NEJM's editors penned by Goldfarb and co-signed by more than 1,100 people, a diverse coalition of medical professionals slammed the journal for what they describe as "racist rhetoric," calling for accountability and the promotion of merit over racial diversity in medicine.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb previously spoke with Fox News Digital about filing complaints against five medical schools. (Fox News Digital)

"Disappointment. That's the reaction that we, the undersigned, and countless others recently had when reading what is supposed to be the most prestigious journal in American medicine," the petition states. "As medical professionals, we turn to your pages for serious and thoughtful research and analysis. Instead, in your April article, 'Racial Affinity Group Caucusing in Medical Education — a Key Supplement to Antiracism Curricula,' we found an argument for medical schools to create student groups segregated by skin color."

The article, written by a group of California researchers and published in NEJM in April, suggested students should be segregated by race for their medical education, arguing racism is "the root cause of racially disparate health outcomes" and the systems that perpetuate such alleged racism should be dismantled.

"Founded on legacies of colonialism and racism, medical education has historically centered White learners and continues to perpetuate structural racism," the article stated, adding that the "immersion" of students who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color in the existing medical education system "can therefore be retraumatizing, resulting in imposter syndrome, heightened anxiety, and a reduced sense of belonging."

As a solution, the researchers propose Racial Affinity Group Caucuses, "facilitated sessions involving participants grouped according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity to support integration of antiracism curricula into clinical practice."

The article goes on to say that in a "space without White people," minority learners "can bring their whole selves, heal from racial trauma together, and identify strategies for addressing structural racism." 

A doctor goes over a patient's X-ray while screening for colon cancer. (American Cancer Society/Getty Images)

According to Do No Harm's petition, such an approach is racial segregation and would only hurt the medical field.

"It is difficult to understand how such offensive language made it past the gatekeepers of this prestigious institution," the petition states. "In these same pages, authors and editors have been covering the unprecedented exodus of physicians and other staff leaving the clinical profession due to demoralization, burnout, and toxic work environments. Have you considered the possibility that divisive and highly politicized pieces such as this might be worsening this crisis, in addition to moving medical education toward segregation?"

The petition goes on to call for "real solutions to the root causes of persistent health disparities," arguing "divisive and racist language" will hold back progress.

NEJM "should apologize for running such an illiberal and extremist article, and ask itself why it was published in the first place," the letter concludes. "Anything less sends a deeply concerning message about the priorities — and indeed, the principles — of the New England Journal of Medicine."

Beyond the petition, Do No Harm is running an ad campaign across major social media platforms and news sites, targeted to NEJM "and other stakeholders" with the message, "Racial segregation has no place in medicine." There will also be a mobile billboard running Thursday at the NEJM and Mass Medical Society headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Example from the nonprofit Do No Harm's ad campaign targeting the New England Journal of Medicine and so-called woke ideology in medicine.

Another example from the nonprofit Do No Harm's ad campaign targeting the New England Journal of Medicine and so-called woke ideology in medicine.

"We believe in a medical community that upholds the highest standards of inclusivity and equality," Goldfarb told Fox News Digital. "The publication of this article is deeply troubling and undermines the progress made in fostering collegiality and teamwork in delivering high quality health care. We call upon the New England Journal of Medicine to address this matter with urgency, accountability, and a commitment to rectify the situation."

NEJM did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

The petition and ad campaign are not the first instances of Do No Harm targeting what it describes as wokeness in the medical field. Under Goldfarb's leadership, the nonprofit has made it a mission to combat progressive ideology in the health care industry while promoting fairness, equal access, and personalized treatment for every patient.

"Patients will be viewed as members of a group based on skin color rather than as individuals," Goldfarb told Fox News Digital last year in response to a study showing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies have gained a significant foothold in American medical colleges. "Diversity has been elevated above merit and achievement as the basis for choosing med students and promoting faculty. This must lead to a decline in the quality of the physician workforce and undermines a foundational idea of America that you can achieve your goals through hard work and talent."

In April, Do No Harm sponsored a Marist poll that found most Americans do not believe reducing reliance on medical entrance exams for medical school or promoting liberal hospital policies designed to promote diversity, equity and inclusion are helping health care. 

"Americans reject the radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology injected into the medical profession," Goldfarb said in response to the poll. "Physicians and patients will suffer if they are force-fed such extremism. Let's call this what it is: dangerous and un-American."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/medical-nonprofit-condemns-prestigious-journal-published-argument-space-without-white-people

Congress seeks NIH emails suggesting Fauci behind scenes to snuff COVID lab leak stories

 A  select House panel on the coronavirus pandemic wants answers from a senior scientific adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci when he was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and who has implied Fauci tried to covertly discredit the COVID-19 lab leak theory.

Ohio GOP Rep. Brad Wenstrup, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, is asking the adviser, David Morens, to turn over documents and communications from his personal email and cellphone, based on information suggesting Morens is intentionally using non-government communications to avoid disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and violate federal record-keeping laws.

The information is purportedly in Morens' emails, and the subcommittee wants a transcribed interview Aug. 2.

The Intercept published dozens of pages of emails including Morens, already obtained by the subcommittee, with scientists who were also seeking to discredit lab leak. 

They include EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, whose organization funneled U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the suspected source of a lab leak; Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute, who initially told Fauci SARS-CoV-2 looked "potentially" engineered; and Angela Rasmussen of Canada's Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, who warned that entertaining lab leak could harm U.S.-China relations.

Morens notified the scientists Sept. 9, 2021, that "I may have to occasionally email from my [National Institutes of Health] account" until his hacked Gmail account, which does not connect to "my NIH computer," is fixed.

"As you know, I try to always communicate on Gmail because my NIH email is FOIA'D constantly," his email says. The other scientists can still email him, and "I will delete anything I don't want to see in the New York Times." 

In a July 29, 2021, exchange with Bloomberg News reporter Jason Gale for a story on COVID origins, Morens said the White House and Department of Health and Human Services denied him permission for "many months" to talk on the record about origins.

"But today, to my total surprise, my boss Tony actually ASKED me" to do this with National Geographic," Morens said, likely referring to Fauci. "| interpret this to mean that our government is lightening up but that Tony doesn't want his fingerprints on origin stories."

Previously disclosed communications suggest Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins covertly contributed to a March 2020 Nature Medicine paper led by Andersen that dismissed a lab leak as a possibility. Fauci later cited the paper in a White House press conference.

Wenstrup flogged Morens for telling National Geographic that searching for the "progenitor virus" may have already crossed over from "doing due diligence to wasting time and being crazy." According to the chairman, "This raises the question of whether this was the narrative Dr. Fauci approved you to say."

Morens suggested his fellow scientists use strategic lawsuits to silence both critical scientists such as Rutgers' Richard Ebright and journalists who were covering China's coronavirus research.

In a Sept. 7, 2021, email referring to such an Intercept report, Daszak complained that FOIA requests were straining EcoHealth staff and that "lab leakers" were promoting "lines of attack that will bring more negative publicity" against Fauci and "all of us" for promoting gain-of-function research that could make viruses more dangerous. 

"Do not rule out suing" them for "slander," Morens said, apparently referring to libel.

Morens' email footer included his position in NIAID's Office of the Director. "This gives the appearance of a government official encouraging litigation against the press for reporting that does not follow public health bureaucrats' pre-conceived narrative and is unacceptable," Wenstrup told Morens.

NIAID did not respond to requests for its response to Wenstrup and how it characterizes Morens' emails.

The subcommittee chairman was also disturbed that Morens referred to Ebright and MIT Broad Institute adviser Alina Chan as "harmful demagogues," in connection with a journalist purportedly conveying their take that NIH-funded Chinese research qualified as gain of function. 

"They need to be called out," Morens wrote in a typo-ridden email. "Because i am in govemment i can only fo this off the record, but have done do again and again." Including these scientists' views in balanced stories is journalists giving "equal time and space" to a Holocaust survivor and "Nazi murderer," he said.

Morens went so far as using his NIH email to trash Chan for research papers he called "biased, cherry-picked, and not the work of a scientist with integrity." 

"These all raise serious concerns about your objectivity while stationed" in Fauci's office at NIAID, which "obligates billions of dollars annually," Wenstrup said. The subcommittee will ask "whether you made or influenced any funding decisions based on your personal motives or biases towards scientists."

The letter requests Moren turn over materials related to the "drafting, publication, or critical reception" of several academic publications related to COVID origins.

It also seeks his communications – including text messages regarding the Wuhan lab, EcoHealth and COVID origins back to Nov. 1, 201 – with Fauci, Collins and several other NIH officials as well as scientists involved in alleged gain of function research.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fauci-tried-hide-fingerprints-covid-origins-debate-advisor-says-admits

Unilever: Cornetto maker defends decision to stay in Russia

 The maker of Dove soap and Cornetto ice cream has defended its decision to keep operating in Russia more than a year after the country invaded Ukraine.

Unilever said that exiting was "not straightforward" as its operations would be taken over by the Russian state if it abandoned them.

It comes after a campaign group estimated the firm is contributing £579m to the Russian economy annually.

The Moral Rating Agency accused the firm of facilitating Russia's invasion.

"Unilever must stop hiding behind its balance sheet and excuses to face the reality that selling an ice cream can allow Putin to pay for a bullet," said founder Mark Dixon.

A host of Western companies from Apple to Levi's quit Russia in the wake of its illegal invasion of Ukraine last year, both for ethical reasons and because sanctions have made it difficult to operate in the country.

However, some firms are still doing business there such as US consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble and drinks maker Pernod Ricard.

P&G has said it has limited its activities in the country, while Pernod said it had to "ensure the economic viability" of its Russian operations.

Unilever, which sells products in the UK such as Marmite and PG Tips, said it had stopped exports and imports to and from Russia and ceased advertising there.

It also claims to be selling only "essential" products in the country, including everyday food and hygiene products.

But the Moral Rating Agency (MRA) said that Unilever's production facilities in Russia continued to manufacture and sell most of its original goods in the country.

It said its calculations accounted for the total amount Unilever paid into the Russian treasury annually, along with money spent on local suppliers, employees and for other costs such as rent and technology.

"The MRA calculation starts with Unilever's admission in its 2022 Annual Report that its Russian business represents 1.4% of turnover," the group added.

'Not straightforward'

Referring the BBC to its most recent statement in February, Unilever said: "We understand why there are calls for Unilever to leave Russia.

"We also want to be clear that we are not trying to protect or manage our business in Russia. However, for companies like Unilever, which have a significant physical presence in the country, exiting is not straightforward."

The company, which employs around 3,000 people in Russia, said that if it were to abandon its brands in Russia, "they would be appropriated - and then operated - by the Russian state".

The consumer goods giant said it had been unable to find a way to sell the business that "avoids the Russian state potentially gaining further benefit, and which safeguards our people".

It said there were no "desirable" options, but that continuing to run the business with "strict constraints" was the best way forward in the circumstances.

This week, Shell was criticised for continuing to trade in Russian gas more than a year after pledging to withdraw from the Russian energy market.

The oil giant said the trades were the result of "long-term contractual commitments" and do not violate laws or sanctions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66101852