(Substack)—Harvard University has an extensive history of discrimination within its admission processes. It has been proven that they make it harder for Asian and Caucasian students to get accepted even when their academic records in high school demonstrate worthiness.
That practice extends to their hiring and promoting practices for staff. As noted by journalist Christopher Rufo, their “Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches” document specifies discriminatory preferences:
Particularly when there are placement goals, the Chair should consider reading the applications of women and minorities first, ensuring that their applications receive due consideration in the search process.
At the time of this article’s publication, the document has been moved. It is unclear if this is temporary but search engines still list it so the change is apparently recent. Here’s a screenshot from Rufo:
In a landmark decision on June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, effectively ending these programs at universities like Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard found that Harvard’s policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision overturned 45 years of unfair precedent that allowed universities to consider race as one factor in admissions, particularly to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
But the history of discriminatory hiring practices has been against code for even longer. Federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, generally prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on race in hiring and other employment decisions.
How has Harvard been able to discriminate for so long? With the Trump administration cracking down on discriminatory and other race-specific practices at universities, will Harvard continue to defy the tenets of equality and fairness?
At Last, a Company With Integrity in the Gold IRA Industry
For several years, I’ve been vetting out precious metals companies in search of the best. I believe in gold and silver but it’s hard to find integrity in the Gold IRA industry. The vast majority operate with shady tactics and gigantic spreads that take advantage of Americans who simply want to protect their life’s savings.
I’ve found a handful that I like and I’ve worked with some of them. By no means would I “unrecommend” them because, again, I vetted them out and found them to be above the fold. Unfortunately, it isn’t hard to be better than the rest when the rest are so darn awful.
After years of searching, I finally found a company that truly operates with integrity. Augusta Precious Metals has three important attributes that set them far above the competition:
- Non-Commissioned Sales Team: I cannot stress how important and unique this is. With just about every other company in the Gold IRA industry, the sales teams make commission from every account they open. This means they steer their clients toward the gold and silver products with the highest commission. With Augusta Precious Metals, the team is solely focused on putting the best gold and silver for their clients into their IRA. They get paid to serve the best interests of the Gold IRA client, NOT their own commission pay.
- Incredibly Low Fees: Most Americans would be shocked if they knew the spread other Gold IRA companies charge. Augusta charges just 5% versus up to 45% elsewhere.
- No Pressure, No Gimmicks: There’s an understanding among most in the Gold IRA industry that fear and pressure is the way to go. Augusta Precious Metals takes a sober approach when working with clients because they hold integrity in the highest possible regard. This is why they don’t offer gimmicks like “free” or “bonus” silver. It’s also why they do not apply pressure tactics to get quick sales. Their educational and transparent approach to doing business is exceedingly rare in the Gold IRA industry.