Restoring Equality, Restoring Civil Rights

n a recent debate with Lee Bollinger, current president of Columbia University and the named defendant in the University of Michigan race cases just decided by the Supreme Court, Matt Lauer asked Mr. Bollinger: "Can you have diversity at our universities and schools without taking race into account?" Mr. Bollinger responded: "You really can't." So much for the long march of civil rights that began by declaring all men were created equal; Abraham Lincoln's belief that we could treat all humans equally because they are all part of "the whole great family of man;" Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson saying "The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color....;" and Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children would one day "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Color of skin, for Mr. Bollinger and those who supported the Michigan's race-based admissions policies, is to be taken into account — now and, presumably, for the foreseeable future. This position demarks civil wrongs, not civil rights — and this week's Supreme Court rulings give us little hope that the next generation of Americans struggling through our commitments to equality and liberty will be able to see people as people and not people as categories defined by their race.

The lead plaintiff in the University of Michigan cases, Jennifer Gratz, was denied admission to the university despite a very admirable case for admission: She graduated near the top of her class, maintained a 3.8 G.P.A., and volunteered in her community. But there was one critical fact damning her case for admission: She had the wrong color of skin. That last sentence would have raised hackles if it were written about a minority student in the 1950s or 1960s — today it is met with a shrug of the shoulders because Ms. Gratz is white. What happened to the notion so many of us fought for for so long — that race should be simply irrelevant in law, that we should strive toward a society that does not convey rights or benefits based on the color of one's skin? It fell toward the wayside.

To see Ms. Gratz's case — and so many others like hers — as simply coincidental is to ignore the race-based policies used at the University of Michigan. Michigan's policy actually rewarded admissions points to applicants who were black and Hispanic. On a scale of 150, race counted for 20 points — more than personal achievement and SAT scores combined. In fact, a black student was 174 times more likely to be admitted to the Ann Arbor campus than a white student: That is disparate impact. But far worse, it is taking race into account to convey a right or privilege as well as to deny a right or privilege, and the word for that is, plainly and simply: racism. The Supreme Court struck down the mechanized use of a point system this week, but went on to say that a more "narrowly tailored" plan (read: less obvious use of race), for purposes of a diverse student body, would pass constitutional muster.

Let us keep in mind two things: 1) No historical discrimination against blacks or Hispanics had ever been alleged at the University of Michigan; and 2) "Diversity" is itself a laudable goal if we are talking about intellectual diversity — the diversity of minds, opinions, and intellectual approaches to contemporary and historical problems. Those are goals universities should be committed to. But today's campuses are some of the most uniformed redoubts of intellectual thinking in America, and it is no accident that not only are our student bodies and professoriate of overwhelmingly singular mind on matters of policy and intellectual approach, but that so many attempts toward integration by claims of "diversity" have led to racial self segregation in the forms of racial study centers, racial dormitories, and racial graduation ceremonies.

Racial diversity for the sake of racial diversity reifies the concept that the crudest characteristic of a human being (his race) will determine the subtlest characteristic of a human being (his thinking and intellectual ability). The notion that race determines thinking was a notion that should have been buried in a Berlin bunker 50 years ago. It should not find renewed succor in today's Supreme Court or America's institutions of higher learning. The tough job of admissions counselors should be, in fact, tough: they should work hard to examine and scrutinize applicants and applications, and not simply assume a racial stereotype which will, indeed, lead to more racial consciousness, not less.

On Martin Luther King Jr. day this year, President Bush announced his decision to file a brief on behalf of Jennifer Gratz saying, "Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law." While this statement is commonsensical on its face, President Bush's decision flew in the face of the organized elite — and their many legal briefs — who kowtow to the idea that race must be used to get beyond racism. That is the easy, short-term, and unconstitutional way to address problems of race in this country. Thus, it took courage on the president's behalf to oppose convention — to oppose political correctness with moral right.

While the decisions announced this week will renew the debate about race and racism in this country, we should remember one thing, and it was taught to us by Thurgood Marshall in his historic brief in Brown v. Board of Education: "Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere." Marshall was right in 1954, and so was President Bush on Martin Luther King Day. Race should play no factor in educational opportunity or any other right or privilege in 21st-century America. If the Supreme Court will not acknowledge this, who will?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Bennett has harmed himself, his family and conservatives in general. This (and every other moment for the next 30 years) would be a good time for him to shut up. No, he didn't break any laws, but it is just plain stupid to throw big bucks around in a casino. Its about his judgement, not his actions.

This is racial discrimination no matter how you look at it, and as such it's unconstitutional.

In a civil society of Free Men, electing those who make laws, this ruling would either never have taken place, or if it did take place would be reviewed by The People at voting time.

As it stands now SCOTUS has absolute power in such matters and The People have no recourse but to sit back and wonder how they got left out of the law-making process.

This ruling is a stark reminder of how a handful of people, in black robes, can determine the fate of an entire race of people.

In the end only The people themselves are to blame for fostering this system of being governed by an unelected elite judiciary.

Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish. F.A. Hayek

The notion that race determines thinking was a notion that should have been buried in a Berlin bunker 50 years ago.

This says more about the spiritual pedigree of the Left than anything else.

I have to disagree with you on that one RKV. The Libs were looking to take Mr. Bennett down. There is nothing on public record of him coming out against gambling. Now your and my pesonal belief on the subject notwithstanding but it seems that he met all of his financial obligations while loosing all of that money. Plus it was his money to do what he wanted with as well as being involved in a legal activity. If you come out against this what about the state run lotteries?

Mr. Bennett is right about teaching morals and values to children. I am sure all of us on this network have wasted money but remember it was our money to waste in the first place.

I am a retired Army officer (artillery, MI, and chaplain). I have the privilege of teaching several classes in Colorado Springs to high school, college, and adults on comparative worldviews (biblical vs secular). As I read the various threads, some impress me as good for illustrating different worldviews. So, using some Army terminology, I mark "incidents" as "SPOTREPS" (spot report) and "descriptions of the current world scene" as "SITREPs" (situation reports). INTREP (Intelliegence Report) provides information of an event involving those of the "opposition;" INTSUM (Intelligence Summary) provides more general information. When I get home, I download these SPOTREPs and SITREPs to a database for future use.

Does that help?

What everyone fails to realize (on both sides of the aisle) is that the original goal of affirmative action was to achieve equality, not diversity.

Diversity as a concept didn't even enter into the conversation until the race warlords went nuts during the latter portion of the Clinton Administration.

If we can get back to the concept of "equality", and fix the broken system that obviously is not working when it comes to that, then, and only then will we be able to say that things are working.

But the political correctness police is on the job and breaking their collective necks to ram "diversity" down our throats in an effort to keep their agenda on the table.

Diversity as a concept didn't even enter into the conversation until the race warlords went nuts during the latter portion of the Clinton Administration.

It appeared much earlier in academia. In the late 80's, I was the only scientist, and only conservative, in a program for young faculty at SUNY Stony Brook. "Diversity' was the buzzword among the leftist faculty; I remember making what I thought was an obvious comment that one's legal rights should not depend on one's race or sex, and one of them told me this was racist, sexist and homophobic. That's when my head started to swim.

Nice piece; I wonder who ghosted it for him? There are, however, three slight problems with it.

The notion that race determines thinking was a notion that should have been buried in a Berlin bunker 50 years ago.

That was 58 years ago, not 50.

Thurgood Marshall: He adamantly supported AA.

MLK: His oft-quoted line from 1963 notwithstanding, he very soon became wed to AA and racial spoils.

I am absolutely against state (not private) lotteries and against states (not private businesses) selling booze or cigarettes. The state has no business earning income from the citizens vices - they might as well own a brothel. Notwithstanding the fact that he was able to meet his obligations, I still question Bennett's judgement. He needlessly gave the oposition a club with which to beat us. If the amounts had been smaller, there would have been no concern.

Try Amendment 14, Section 1. The last clause that deals with EQUAL protection of the laws.

It doesn't say some people are more equal than others. Too bad the Supremes don't read the Constitution more often.

"Try Amendment 14, Section 1. The last clause that deals with EQUAL protection of the laws."

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

At best, it states what the government can or can not do. Not what other citizens can or can not do...

You got it right. Now read it again real carefully.

The Judiciary is part of the government. The Judiciary is that part of government that tells citizens what they can and can't do.

Amendment 14 says we're all due equal protection. The Judiciary says we're not.

Go figure.

Well said... diversity is a cuss word that emerged from the political correctness movement. This whole debate already plays into the hands of people who are already prejudiced. No offense to FR but there are people who say they won't go to a minority doctor because of this decision (when I suspect no matter what a black doctor does they'll feel that way anyway). I've never looked at someone and wondered if they got where they were because of AA or some other reason. I think AA should be trashed altogether. Besides what does race have to do with admittance anyway? Many schools also offer scholarships based on ethnicity, black, indian, irish,etc. Also, what's to stop anybody from checking off hispanic or black if they aren't? If I go to Michigan will I get points for being white, for being black, hispanic, and maybe asian? All of my family are immigrants, not Americans. Does this count?

SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS CAN GET?

LOL, and you'd be sad if they had voted AA down totally?

Though the judiciary has way too much power, were you complaining in 2000?

I'll put it this way, if unconstitutional and tyrannical laws didn't seem to get enacted so often by legislators you wouldn't need the judges to rule on these matters.

And BTW, these AA racist policies were not enacted by judges but by elected officials. I'll conclude by saying this, I'd rather have 9 Clarence Thomases deciding the rule of law than have 50 legislatures dominated by leftists.

Sorry, freedom trumps all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.