Show me a current Jim Crow law!

3 examples:

Start with gerrymandering. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states were often required (or pressured) to draw majority-minority districts so minority voters could elect candidates of their choice. In practice, that means concentrating Black or Hispanic voters into specific districts, which reduces the voting influence of surrounding (often majority-white) districts. Courts have allowed this within limits, though they’ve also struck down maps that go too far, like in Shaw v. Reno. The key argument: districts are sometimes explicitly drawn with race as a primary factor, which inevitably advantages some racial groups over others in representation.

Next is college admissions. Under Grutter v. Bollinger, race could be used as one factor in admissions to promote diversity. This meant a white applicant could be rejected despite equal or better academic metrics. That system was largely ended by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, but for years it was a clear example of race being used in decision-making at a systemic level.

Third is race-based preferences in certain government programs, things like contracting goals or scholarships tied to minority status. These don’t overtly say “discourage white applicants,” but they, in practice, exclude or disadvantage them through the unfair competitive processes.

All three examples you gave were, and I disallowed such argument, examples of former, disallowed actions by the States to impose restrictions and added qualifications for voting and other activities, For example: the Voting Rights Act of 1965 you cited contained the following: "SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." This simple injunction was violated by many states by their gerrymandering efforts when. the practice of drawing district borders expressly for racial parity is forbidden by the 1965 VRA, Sec. 2. The VA law just passed, and shot down by VA District Court, was on violation of the VRA. The VRA clearly tightened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to further restrict efforts of Jim Crow, and demonstrates an example of former Jim Crow being abolished, and not current.

College admission is not statutory law, so does not fit the paradigm I've stated, either, even for college tuiton, which is not federal or state law or policy, either, but college institutions. When DEI is fully eradicated, and it should be, because it is not statutory law, anyway, this issue will be gone.

Your third example is also DEI, which is not statutory law, as stated.

So, you are drawing examples of peoples' interpretation of statutory law and policy, but not the law of policy itself.

Ji9m Crow laws were state and local statutes enacted in the Southern United States from the late 1870s into the 1960s that enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans.  The term originated from a 19th-century minstrel routine performed by Thomas Dartmouth Rice, where he portrayed a derogatory caricature of a Black man, which eventually became a slur and a label for the system of white supremacy. 

Yes, the current SCOTUS removed all 3 of those Jim Crow policies within the last year.

Regarding DEI at State Universities, the only institutions which fall under jurisdiction of State government, and, therefore, subject to Title VII, only employees of the university can sue the university for discrimination violating Title VII. However, applying students to the university who are denied entry by the appearance of applied DEI in favor of another student who meets DEI "qualification" do have legal recourse:

1. They can sue the university under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits race discrimination in programs receiving federal funding
2. They can sue the university for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment

or both simultaneously.