<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Federal Appeals Court Rules that Not Allowing Racial Preferences Violates Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3939435</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3939435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t like the result, but if it&#039;s true that &quot;legacy&quot; preferences were permitted, it makes no sense to constitutionally prohibit racial preferences. If you allow one preference you have to allow all. I am not arguing for affirmative action, which I consider unconstitutional, despite what any court says. Michigan needs to fine tune the amendment, or let admission committees make their own admission determinations. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#039;t like the result, but if it&#039;s true that &quot;legacy&quot; preferences were permitted, it makes no sense to constitutionally prohibit racial preferences. If you allow one preference you have to allow all. I am not arguing for affirmative action, which I consider unconstitutional, despite what any court says. Michigan needs to fine tune the amendment, or let admission committees make their own admission determinations. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: larryfrom10ec</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3932364</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[larryfrom10ec]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3932364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hard to tell if we are livng in &quot;1984&quot; or &quot;Atlas Shrugged&quot;. Maybe  a hybrid. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hard to tell if we are livng in &quot;1984&quot; or &quot;Atlas Shrugged&quot;. Maybe  a hybrid. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed6600</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3931332</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed6600]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3931332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, actually, the decision does not make &quot;some sense.&quot;  You agree with the anti-white racist court on alumni legacy because you are either a liberal or a gullible, easily influenced &quot;conservative.&quot; If the legacy preference was manifestly discriminate against the offspring of black alumni, or if the legacy preference was deliberately directed, like a poll tax, against blacks, you could then truthfully say that legacy preference amounted to &quot;white privilege.&quot;  However, neither is the case in alumni legacy preference.  I believe that the motto of the British chivalric Order of the Garter would be most appropriate here: Honi soit qui mal y pense (Shame on him who thinks this evil). ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, actually, the decision does not make &quot;some sense.&quot;  You agree with the anti-white racist court on alumni legacy because you are either a liberal or a gullible, easily influenced &quot;conservative.&quot; If the legacy preference was manifestly discriminate against the offspring of black alumni, or if the legacy preference was deliberately directed, like a poll tax, against blacks, you could then truthfully say that legacy preference amounted to &quot;white privilege.&quot;  However, neither is the case in alumni legacy preference.  I believe that the motto of the British chivalric Order of the Garter would be most appropriate here: Honi soit qui mal y pense (Shame on him who thinks this evil). </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zaduba</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3931064</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zaduba]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3931064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[     As for alumni preferences in relation to affirmative action, check out this November 15 Detroit News article, &quot;It&#039;s time to end alumni preferences&quot;, at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121115/OPINION01/211150337&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121115/OPINI...&lt;/a&gt;. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>     As for alumni preferences in relation to affirmative action, check out this November 15 Detroit News article, &quot;It&#039;s time to end alumni preferences&quot;, at <a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121115/OPINION01/211150337" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121115/OPINI" rel="nofollow">http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121115/OPINI</a>&#8230;. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: huapakechi</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3930534</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[huapakechi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3930534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unfortunately, you are correct. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, you are correct. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: huapakechi</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3930503</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[huapakechi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:30:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3930503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lewis Carroll&#039;s eloquent discussions from the &quot;Alice&quot; books have come to the judiciary.    
  
Should we impose a &quot;Three Strikes&quot; rule on our judges, removing them from the bench AND the practice of law when they&#039;ve made three such bonehead rulings as the one described above?  Justice would be better served if there were consequences for judicial stupidity and legislating from the bench. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lewis Carroll&#039;s eloquent discussions from the &quot;Alice&quot; books have come to the judiciary.    </p>
<p>Should we impose a &quot;Three Strikes&quot; rule on our judges, removing them from the bench AND the practice of law when they&#039;ve made three such bonehead rulings as the one described above?  Justice would be better served if there were consequences for judicial stupidity and legislating from the bench. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: huapakechi</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3930469</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[huapakechi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3930469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Would you care to debate that subject with Dr. Thomas Sowell or Justice Clarence Thomas? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would you care to debate that subject with Dr. Thomas Sowell or Justice Clarence Thomas? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lughon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929951</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lughon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:55:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for your open mindedness. Expediency is Truth, right?  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your open mindedness. Expediency is Truth, right?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lughon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929854</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lughon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929854</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Blacks are less intelligent and handicapping Whites is the only way for them to succeed. We should ask for affirmative action in Pro Sports - especially Basketball. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blacks are less intelligent and handicapping Whites is the only way for them to succeed. We should ask for affirmative action in Pro Sports &#8211; especially Basketball. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929833</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme court will never hear it. Anything that smacks of reverse discrimination is avoided by that court like it was some sort of plague. They won&#039;t hear it becuase they can&#039;t ,in good conscience, defend it.  Like the Federal government giving minority preference in its hiring programs. It is reverse discrimination no matter what you call it. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme court will never hear it. Anything that smacks of reverse discrimination is avoided by that court like it was some sort of plague. They won&#039;t hear it becuase they can&#039;t ,in good conscience, defend it.  Like the Federal government giving minority preference in its hiring programs. It is reverse discrimination no matter what you call it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian L.</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929390</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian L.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would say that the reverse is true.  The KKK as you are talking about would have NEVER done what these judges have done.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would say that the reverse is true.  The KKK as you are talking about would have NEVER done what these judges have done.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wayne</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[wayne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, most judges are ,, in fact , democraps ,, right lol. And democraps did ,, in fact start the K  K  K  way back when :) . ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, most judges are ,, in fact , democraps ,, right lol. And democraps did ,, in fact start the K  K  K  way back when <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" />  . </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Morry</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3929183</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Morry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3929183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another -- more direct (&amp; possibly better?) -- analogy for the court&#039;s decision, WHICH ALSO HAS VAST GENERAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT: 
 
When a law or legal procedure is deemed counter to the equal protections clause (ie, UNCONSTITUTIONAL), then this decision deems that the remedy is NOT to repeal that wrong law or declare it unconstitutional, but rather to assert yet ANOTHER law or court order which a few judges think will somehow precisely counter-act the effect(s) of the unconstitutional law (EVEN IF THAT NEW LAW WOULD BE, BY ITSELF, UNCONSTITUTIONAL).  
 
In other words, the court has decided that its job is NOT to correct wrong laws, but instead to let them stand and then to operate by the principle that &quot;TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT&quot; by ordering a standing  counter-measure.    (And not-so-incidentally, the court thus also deems that the variable, unpredictable,  non-uniform and highly SUBJECTIVE decisions of VARIOUS SMALL GROUPS OF MEN (such as college admissions board members), RATHER THAN THE LAWS THEMSELVES, AS WRITTEN AND DULY PASSED BY THE PEOPLE&#039;S REPRESENTATIVES, may be permitted by the judiciary branch to stand as the law of the land EVEN IF UNCONSTITUTIONAL on their own merits.  
 
Need I explain why this will lead to an almost infinite multiplication of the number of laws on the books, a multiplication APPLIED TO the overwhelmingly enormous number of laws we already have? 
 
SUMMARY: 
This decision establishes 2 VERY disturbing NEW precedents, each of which undermines a FUNDAMENTAL pillar of the legal philosophy our nation&#039;s system is built upon : 
1.  That 2 (or more) illegal acts are OK if SOME person(s) deem(s) that their practical effects cancel each other out -- ie, that 2 wrongs co-existing side-by-side make a right. 
2.  That the Constitution mandates a Federal Gov&#039;t which rules according to the opinions of an unlimited (potentially infinite) random assortment of small groups of individual MEN, and NOT according to a relatively fixed body of clearly defined LAWS. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another &#8212; more direct (&amp; possibly better?) &#8212; analogy for the court&#039;s decision, WHICH ALSO HAS VAST GENERAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT: </p>
<p>When a law or legal procedure is deemed counter to the equal protections clause (ie, UNCONSTITUTIONAL), then this decision deems that the remedy is NOT to repeal that wrong law or declare it unconstitutional, but rather to assert yet ANOTHER law or court order which a few judges think will somehow precisely counter-act the effect(s) of the unconstitutional law (EVEN IF THAT NEW LAW WOULD BE, BY ITSELF, UNCONSTITUTIONAL).  </p>
<p>In other words, the court has decided that its job is NOT to correct wrong laws, but instead to let them stand and then to operate by the principle that &quot;TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT&quot; by ordering a standing  counter-measure.    (And not-so-incidentally, the court thus also deems that the variable, unpredictable,  non-uniform and highly SUBJECTIVE decisions of VARIOUS SMALL GROUPS OF MEN (such as college admissions board members), RATHER THAN THE LAWS THEMSELVES, AS WRITTEN AND DULY PASSED BY THE PEOPLE&#039;S REPRESENTATIVES, may be permitted by the judiciary branch to stand as the law of the land EVEN IF UNCONSTITUTIONAL on their own merits.  </p>
<p>Need I explain why this will lead to an almost infinite multiplication of the number of laws on the books, a multiplication APPLIED TO the overwhelmingly enormous number of laws we already have? </p>
<p>SUMMARY:<br />
This decision establishes 2 VERY disturbing NEW precedents, each of which undermines a FUNDAMENTAL pillar of the legal philosophy our nation&#039;s system is built upon :<br />
1.  That 2 (or more) illegal acts are OK if SOME person(s) deem(s) that their practical effects cancel each other out &#8212; ie, that 2 wrongs co-existing side-by-side make a right.<br />
2.  That the Constitution mandates a Federal Gov&#039;t which rules according to the opinions of an unlimited (potentially infinite) random assortment of small groups of individual MEN, and NOT according to a relatively fixed body of clearly defined LAWS. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soylent Green</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3927829</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Soylent Green]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:51:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3927829</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry, but I can&#039;t see depending on the obviously illiterate and uninterested electorate to SOLVE the problem tomorrow it has CREATED today.    ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, but I can&#039;t see depending on the obviously illiterate and uninterested electorate to SOLVE the problem tomorrow it has CREATED today.    </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @Kenrick66</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3927073</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[@Kenrick66]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3927073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most logical action to take is to get the government out of education. But that&#039;s a corollary of getting the government out of the economy and out of our pockets.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most logical action to take is to get the government out of education. But that&#039;s a corollary of getting the government out of the economy and out of our pockets.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3925764</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Sue]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:26:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3925764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[slight clarification, whites are said to be unable to be discriminated against because they&#039;re the ones &quot;in power.&quot;  To me that is completely meaningless, but the Ethnic Studies think it&#039;s what the world is.   
 
Of course, were the situation to be reversed, they&#039;d still claim whites can&#039;t be discriminated against.  They&#039;ll just make up another excuse as to why not. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>slight clarification, whites are said to be unable to be discriminated against because they&#039;re the ones &quot;in power.&quot;  To me that is completely meaningless, but the Ethnic Studies think it&#039;s what the world is.   </p>
<p>Of course, were the situation to be reversed, they&#039;d still claim whites can&#039;t be discriminated against.  They&#039;ll just make up another excuse as to why not. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3924105</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:06:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3924105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#039;t be silly, whites can never be discriminated against because, after all, they are white. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#039;t be silly, whites can never be discriminated against because, after all, they are white. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3923977</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3923977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, the decision does make some sense. If legacy preference policies gives privilege to offspring of alumni, and if alumni are disproportionately white, then this does amount to white privilege (even though it benefits a certain group of whites, not all whites). It is not &quot;equal opportunity.&quot; 
 
However, the problem with this decision is it attempts to make two wrongs equal a right. It fights privilege with privilege. It does nothing for non-legacy white students who face discrimination from the current policy. So the sensible solution is to do away with BOTH legacy privilege AND affirmative action. This would extend equal opportunity to students of all races. Legacy privilege restricts the opportunities of non-legacy whites the same as non-legacy blacks, so removing it would benefit everyone except those who rely on legacy privilege rather than merit. 
 
However, instead we have affirmative action. So the next move could be for non-legacy white students to point out that they are doubly discriminated against--by BOTH the legacy policies AND the affirmative action policies.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the decision does make some sense. If legacy preference policies gives privilege to offspring of alumni, and if alumni are disproportionately white, then this does amount to white privilege (even though it benefits a certain group of whites, not all whites). It is not &quot;equal opportunity.&quot; </p>
<p>However, the problem with this decision is it attempts to make two wrongs equal a right. It fights privilege with privilege. It does nothing for non-legacy white students who face discrimination from the current policy. So the sensible solution is to do away with BOTH legacy privilege AND affirmative action. This would extend equal opportunity to students of all races. Legacy privilege restricts the opportunities of non-legacy whites the same as non-legacy blacks, so removing it would benefit everyone except those who rely on legacy privilege rather than merit. </p>
<p>However, instead we have affirmative action. So the next move could be for non-legacy white students to point out that they are doubly discriminated against&#8211;by BOTH the legacy policies AND the affirmative action policies.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WilliamJamesWard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3923932</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WilliamJamesWard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3923932</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the 6th Circuit is out to undermine the Constitution and could care less about  
any form of affermative action. The use of illogic while insulting is just that and insult to 
America, it&#039;s Constitution, the idea of justice being guaranteed with equality without 
special privilege. The left is at war against America, the Constitution and law with a 
desire to use as a tool the noxious affront of poised insanity......................William ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the 6th Circuit is out to undermine the Constitution and could care less about<br />
any form of affermative action. The use of illogic while insulting is just that and insult to<br />
America, it&#039;s Constitution, the idea of justice being guaranteed with equality without<br />
special privilege. The left is at war against America, the Constitution and law with a<br />
desire to use as a tool the noxious affront of poised insanity&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.William </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-not-allowing-racial-preferences-violates-equal-protection-clause-of-the-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-3922805</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Sue]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165424#comment-3922805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I bet Barack and Michelle-my-belle&#039;s children get Legacy Alumni rights! ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bet Barack and Michelle-my-belle&#039;s children get Legacy Alumni rights! </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 704/722 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 14:25:52 by W3 Total Cache -->