Michigan and the Backlash Against Race Preferences

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


shutterstock_126388292In a 6-2 ruling reached yesterday, the United States Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of race as a factor for determining college admissions. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the ban can also be extended to other arenas. “There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions,” he wrote. Kennedy further clarified the Court’s intent. “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he explained. “It is about who may resolve it.” 

Michigan voters resolved it in 2006 when 58 percent of the electorate approved Proposal 2. It amended the Michigan Constitution to “ban public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, or public contracting.”

The move was a response to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the use of race as one of many factors used to determine admission to the University of Michigan (U-M) Law School as a means of ensuring educational diversity. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor indicated that the decision had a likely time limit attached to it. “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” she contended. 

The people of Michigan preferred not to wait that long. Nonetheless, the will of the electorate was thwarted in 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. In an 8-7 vote, the Court ruled that Proposal 2 violated the United States Constitution’s equal protection clause, using the reliably leftist argument that the elimination of racial preferences disproportionately affects those who would have been the beneficiaries of those preferences. 

Writing for the majority, Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. proffered that specious argument. “A student seeking to have her family’s alumni connections considered in her application to one of Michigan’s esteemed public universities could do one of four things to have the school adopt a legacy-conscious admissions policy: she could lobby the admissions committee, she could petition the leadership of the university, she could seek to influence the school’s governing board, or, as a measure of last resort, she could initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state’s Constitution. The same cannot be said for a black student seeking the adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy. That student could do only one thing to effect change: she could attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution–a lengthy, expensive and arduous process–to repeal the consequences of Proposal 2.” 

The disingenuousness of this reasoning is stark. Both students would have to engage in arduous efforts to get the school to adopt a particular policy, including equal efforts to effect a change in the state constitution. But because a legacy-conscious admissions policy offered additional avenues of possible redress, such alternatives constituted discrimination.

Dissenting Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton said his colleagues got it exactly backward. “A state does not deny equal treatment by mandating it,” he said, further contending  that the ruling “transforms a potential virtue of affirmative action into a vice. If there is one feature of affirmative action programs that favors their constitutionality, it is that they grow out of the democratic process.”  

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made her disdain for the democratic process quite clear, insisting that “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.” “The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she continued. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.”

Sotomayor is certainly right that democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups, but the notion that the elimination of racial preferences constitutes oppression is absurd. And the only “selective barrier” erected here was the one that put non-minority students in a disadvantaged position with regard to college admissions. One can work hard to achieve better grades and test scores, or participate in any number of activities to enhance one’s chances of being accepted to a college. One can do nothing to alter one’s ethnicity.

In fact the Supreme Court recognized that reality on the same day they ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger.  In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled 6-3 that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate policy, whereby “underrepresented” ethnic groups automatically received 20 points towards an admission score in which 100 points guaranteed admission (compared to 12 points for a prefect SAT score) was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that “predetermined point allocations” awarding 20 points to underrepresented minorities “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed,” thereby rendering the law unconstitutional.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette applauded yesterday’s ruling. “The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today,” he said. “Our state constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed.” 

George Washington, an attorney for the radical leftist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), offered the predictable over-the-top response. “This is a terrible ruling,” he contended. “It gives the white majority the right to deny black and Latinos the right to higher education. It is today’s Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. We will fight it by every means possible. The Supreme Court has made it clear they want to repeal the gains of the Civil Rights movement.”

His sentiments were undoubtedly shared by the Black Student Union. They have condemned the low level of minority enrollment at U-M, and earlier this year they told college officials they had seven days to meet a list of seven demands addressing lack of diversity and inclusion at the University or “physical actions” will be taken on campus. One of those demands included an increase of black student representation on campus from the current 4.6 percent to 10 percent.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and admissions director Ted Spencer were undoubtedly disappointed as well. Both have denounced the affirmative action ban, contending the school cannot achieve a fully diverse student body as a result. “It’s impossible,” Spencer said in a recent interview, “to achieve diversity on a regular basis if race cannot be used as one of many factors.”

Philip Pucillo, a lecturer at Michigan State University’s law school and a constitutional law scholar, cut through the self-inflicted hysteria. “The court isn’t saying anything about whether a public university can have a race-related admissions process in this ruling, rather they are saying that there is nothing wrong with the voters of a state saying they can’t have it,” he explained.

Additional parts of Justice Kennedy’s comments clarified exactly that. “Were the Court to rule that the question addressed by Michigan voters is too sensitive or complex to be within the grasp of the electorate; or that the policies at issue remain too delicate to be resolved save by university officials or faculties, acting at some remove from immediate public scrutiny and control; or that these matters are so arcane that the electorate’s power must be limited because the people cannot prudently exercise that power even after a full debate, that holding would be an unprecedented restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common,” he wrote. “It is the right to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process.

Left-leaning Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar argument. “I continue to believe that the Constitution permits, though it does not require, the use of the kind of race-conscious programs that are now barred by the Michigan Constitution. … But the Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs,” he wrote.

The ruling will impact more than just Michigan. In California, backlash largely from Asian community groups has forced legislators to shelve a bill that would have allowed race, gender and ethnicity to be considered for admissions in that state’s public universities. Six other states, including Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire already have bans similar to the one Michigan enacted. More states could follow.

As the number of states departing from race politics orthodoxy grows, and as successful challenges to racial preferences at the high court also increase in number, the left’s stranglehold on race relations is becoming weaker and weaker. The rejection of race-based decision-making in such areas as employment and admissions has found wider acceptance among the population and in the halls of government; the sentiment is perhaps stronger than it has been in decades. These trends give hope that the era of race hatred and balkanization is approaching its end. 

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Bamaguje

    “It’s impossible to achieve diversity on a regular basis if race cannot be used as one of many factors” – Ted Spencer, Univ of Michigan admissions director.

    Really?? This is basically a racist insult on Black people… that they can’t compete on a level playing field, so admission standards has to be lowered for them.
    How about addressing the root cause of Black educational underachievment… dysfunctional single parent homes, failed inner city public schools etc.

    • American1969

      Well said!

      • john spielman

        Or, all animals are equal but pigs are just “more equal” than the others!

        • lisa741

          my Aunty Arianna got a nearly new silver
          Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab by working part time off of a macbook air. try this
          F­i­s­c­a­l­P­o­s­t­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Steve Fair

      Bullcrap. SAT and ACT scores are not the sole indicators of merit. This is just a move to whiten public universities across America. Why aren’t they challenging legacy admissions? Standards are not lowered, that’s garbage. AA only suggests that race can be a consideration especiallu in light of the ugly racial history in America.

      • NAHALKIDES

        Why should race be allowed as a consideration? Why do you think it’s right to discriminate against white people?

      • Drakken

        So in other words, your too ignorant and stupid to get into a college and must be coddled and hold your hand in order to get you to function, Brilliant!

      • kasandra

        If standards aren’t lowered, as you say, why do you object to eliminating these programs?

        • SFLBIB

          Why can’t minorities just hit the books and study harder?

      • truebearing

        Anyone who doesn’t understand that you can’t eliminate racial discrimination by continuing to racially discriminate shouldn’t be going to college anyway. You couldn’t pass Logic 101.

      • Bamaguje

        “SAT and ACT scores are not the sole indicators of merit” – Steve unFair.

        But race is? If educational standards are to be improve, academic perfomance should be the sole criteria for admitting students to University. If you know of a better test than SAT/ACT, push for it.

        “Why aren’t they challenging legacy admissions?” – Steve unFair.

        Admission on any basis other than academic performance should be scrapped.

        We’ve all seen the adverse consequences of admitting a president into the White House because of perverse “White guilt” Affirmative Action – incompetence!!

      • JamesJ

        It isn’t whitey holding you back. Its your own culture. Deal with it!

      • SFLBIB

        “SAT and ACT scores are not the sole indicators of merit.”

        OK, I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument. There is more than one path to a college degree. If a student’s SAT / ACT scores are not that red-hot, he can always go to a community college, where the only requirements for admission are a body temperature of 98.6 degrees and an age of 18, and prove his merit by taking some courses that he will need anyway. After two years of proving his merit, he can transfer to a four-year institution and finish his degree. I did just that because my SAT scores were not that good, and went on to get my degree.

        My point is that a top university’s freshman class’ failure to conform visually to some per-determined liberal ideology is no indication the “underrepresented” are not getting a college education.

    • Stan Stein

      Hi Bam…ya…all true, but there’s more to it than that….distaste for “whitie” (making an attitude point…not a disparagement here)…has been passed down thru the generations, beginning with the only ones who actually WERE slaves….but they had nowhere near the hate that has built up over 2 centuries of festering. Our government, our schools, our people in general, have been so inept at addressing racism, that they have actually made it worse. So, ya….your last line is absolutely true….but everyonce has a clean slate when it all comes down to it….besides having white people elect a black president, our music and sport stars have no color lines…..it’s not a COLOR issue in the physical sense….it’s attitude….I spent my first 10 years as a kid, in Watts, California….so I know about racism….being white, in a ghetto environment, I was a victim of it….but to this day, the sight of a black or hispanic citizen, who has a good attitude, acts like a gentleman or lady, always prompts a genuine smile, an affectionate tone, and admiration from me for their overcoming what too many people fall prey to. Besides, a black man saved my life when I was hemmoraging to death at the age of 4 after a botched operation….so there has never been an ounce of racism in my family….

    • JamesJ

      Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations

    • Christopher Riddle

      EXACTLY!”Affirmative Action”has proved to be ANYTHING BUT”AFFIRMATIVE”!!It has served to”cement’Racial Hatred”!It serves No One’s Purposes excepting those who wield this as a”Political Tool”to “BUY VOTES”!!!Charter Schools are closed because they are too effective and shine the”Light”on”The Public School System”as one of intentional mediocrity that “Panders”to Teacher’s Unions!!!!!Even Obongo closed Charter Schools in DC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • American1969

    The fact is that in this day and age, we do not need Affirmative Action anymore. We should want the best of the best in our colleges and universities and worry less about whether or not the school is “diverse” enough.
    What matters is whether or not the students can handle the curriculum and get an education, not whether there are enough members of a certain race or ethnicity in the school. No one is being denied access because of their race anymore, so let’s cut the fairy tale nonsense. This is about certain groups of people thinking that they need and deserve special privileges that others don’t get.
    It’s laughable that minority groups whine about “white privilege”, but have no problem with Affirmative Action for themselves without even a hint of irony. Poor white and Asian students don’t get Affirmative Action privileges other students get. Isn’t that prejudicial?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Obama, not being a descendent of American Slavery, should NEVER have benefited from Affirmative Action.

      Equal Opportunity for all Americans, regardless of Race, Creed or national origin.

      • Sheik Yerbouti

        Exactly. He’s an imposter. Unfortunately SOME people vote strictly along color lines. Imagine if whites did that in the US.

        • American1969

          LOL!
          Love your screen name!

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            Thanks, it’s an album by Frank Zappa!

    • SFLBIB

      “What matters is whether or not the students can handle the curriculum
      and get an education, not whether there are enough members of a certain
      race or ethnicity in the school.”

      This is true. What the schools are doing is playing a race shell game. Underprepared minorities are admitted to make the student body “look like” America, but they don’t care if they cannot handle the course load, since they can be replaced by new faces next year. Any advocates of these AA programs ever trot out some graduation statistics on how many AA admittees actually graduate? If the AA programs really worked, the administrations would be pushing those figures in our faces.

  • http://brukpoint.pl/ mintofo

    Pragniesz posiadać przed domem śliczny chodnik? Przewidujesz ułożyć podjazd przed swoją posesją? Nic skomplikowanego, wystarczy jedynie, że skontaktujesz się z naszą firmą i opiszesz nam własny projekt. Jeżeli natomiast wypatrujesz rady lub po prostu nie za bardzo wiesz, od czego rozpocząć – wejdź na należącą do nas stronę, skontaktuj się oraz podejmij współpracę. Dla nas układanie kostki brukowej warszawa to po prostu powszedniość, której podołamy solidnie oraz błyskawicznie. W następstwie tego nie czekaj, nie szukaj innych znawców lub ewentualnie firm, które są drogie i niedokładne. My zaspokoimy Twoje brukarskie pragnienia!

    • BS77

      kjosiuhtriuoro eiuhoibnvos wlkjljfoisouitg !!!!!

      • tagalog

        So how’s the 173d Airborne Brigade doing over there in Poland, as we prepare to begin fighting with Russia over Crimea for some unknown reason? I hope you’re treating them hospitably.

        Ask our guys where NATO is, willya?

  • DaCoachK

    Affirmative action policies make America less competitive in the world, as our best and brightest are not being considered-just a “preferred” group based on “diversity” factors. AA was born of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, time will show, will be the end of the country. The law was ambiguous and allowed for ridiculous policies such as AA. That law also destroyed freedom of association and allowed the government to intrude on business like nothing else. CRA 1964: Repeal and rewrite.

  • Joe The Gentile

    Despite what many judges seem to think, ‘Minority group’ versus ‘Majority group’ is not a valid constitutional construct regarding rights. It is irrelevant to your rights whether your group is larger or smaller. Pro-black affirmative action is discrimination against non-blacks. This is true whether blacks are 1% of the population or 90%. We even had affirmative action AGAINST a minority group in the past — this was the ‘jewish quota’, and it was nothing more than PRO-GENTILE affirmative action, pro-majority affirmative action. Jews rightly felt discriminated against–they were. Was this pro-gentile affirmative action wrong just because gentiles were the majority of the population? Or was it actually wrong in principle? If it is wrong in principle, it would be wrong if jews were the majority. If it would be wrong against jews in the majority, in a similar way it is wrong against whites in the majority.

    • SFLBIB

      “Was this pro-gentile affirmative action wrong just because gentiles were
      the majority of the population? Or was it actually wrong in principle?”

      Well, I guess that depends on what principle you are using. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement on using merit as a principle.

      • Joe The Gentile

        The principle in question is that RACE is NOT to be used as a basis for selection. No agreement on any other basis for selection is needed for this.

  • Steeloak

    With this ruling, we can now begin to be address the real question , which is “Why do many black Americans fail to meet the minimum standards set by Universities for admission?”
    So much more informative than just blaming implied institutional racism as judged by the lesser percentage of blacks enrolled than their percentage of the population as a whole.

  • tagalog

    So, if the Michigan affirmative action case is “…not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it,” how about leaving the mandate for people to choose to have health insurance or not to the people, and remove that penalty/tax on the choice?

    It’s been 11 years since the Grutter v. Bollinger case decision told us benighted masses that affirmative action would probably not be necessary in 25 years, not quite halfway there. Seems like maybe Justice O’Connor might have been wrong about the time it would take.

    • SFLBIB

      “…how about leaving the mandate for people to choose to have health
      insurance or not to the people, and remove that penalty/tax on the
      choice?”

      That would be challenging the ruling Leftist party. It is not legitimate within a Leftist community to assert the communal will over (and) against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of Leftistism itself)…

      • Joe The Gentile

        I don’t think so. It IS legitimate within the Leftist community to assert the communal will over (and) against an individual human will. The right answer is what you said first, that ‘that would be challenging the ruling Leftist party’, What is legitimate within the Leftist community is imposing the Leftist will, period.

        • tagalog

          Well, except that when the communal will goes against some leftist value, they immediately start a lawsuit, hoping that majorities in the unelected courts will see things their way, so that they can get 5 or so judges to decide how things will be for the rest of us 350 million.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Guarantee Equal Opportunity.

    Not Equal Outcome.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    One UCLA historian remarked in the 1980s that racial preferences had been once been necessary, but they had served their function. That didn’t stop the history department from emphasizing “‘Race,’ class, and gender” in their narratives of US history. See http://clarespark.com/2011/03/26/race-class-and-gender/. Excluded themes: the Constitution and its evolution from the Founders through the progressive movement. I was on my own.

    • dennis x

      The UC system has 4% Black Students. However the make up of the football & basketball teams are more like 90%. These teams are the money makers. Black Students and Black Athletes should attend HBC Schools only!

  • nimbii

    We can hope “…the era of race hatred and Balkanization is approaching its end…” but the left will not release their death grip on their most divisive issues; race and gender.

    How else can they pretend to occupy the moral high-ground?

    They must dangle the few populist issues such as social security, medicare and medicaid (all financially broke) in front of the electorate while making enslavement to the government the carefully hidden prerequisite?

  • kasandra

    While the dissent was a disgrace to the Court (the majority decision upholding a state Constitutional amendment that bans racial discrimination, according to Sotomayor, “eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection
    jurisprudence”) I unfortunately have to agree with Mr. Pucillo’s take on the decision. Accordingly, I don’t like the Court’s very narrow opinion. It simply ratified that the voters of the State of Michigan can, if they so choose, ban the use of grossly unconstitutional criteria in college admissions and employment. Race is a suspect classification in making such decisions and should not be susceptible to a majority of voters saying it is okay or not okay to use. Affirmative discrimination simply violates the guarantee of equal protection of law in the U.S. Constitution and, as such, should be be immune from the will of the majority unless and until it determines to amend that Constitution.

    • tagalog

      Dennis Prager, on his radio show today, asked the question “why is it Constitutionally OK to have laws that both prohibit preferential treatment in one state, and laws that allow it in another state? Isn’t one of those things unconstitutional?”

      • kasandra

        Good point. And egomaniacal guy that I am, I think I know which one is constitutional.

      • truebearing

        Exactly. This is a marginal victory. The constitution is there to defend everyone’s rights, but this decision only increases the probability that Affirmative Action will become a political football, further balkanizing America. One state will vote for AA. The state next door will ban it, and so on.

        Will employers be allowed to show preference to college grads from non-AA colleges? What if they are sued for alleged bias against students with poor grades who benefitted from AA?

      • SFLBIB

        “why is it Constitutionally OK to have laws that both prohibit
        preferential treatment in one state, and laws that allow it in another
        state? Isn’t one of those things unconstitutional?”

        It depends on what the treatment involves. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, robbery statutes distinguish bank robbers from bank customers, speed laws distinguish speeders from non-speeders, merchants distinguish between those with money and those without, and draft boards distinguish babies from adults. Preferential treatment happens everywhere all the time. Most of it is not only legal but desirable.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    It actually is a terrible ruling. Here’s why:

    1) It defends the use of race-based selection criteria but allows the states to decide when and for whom it can be used.
    2) It upholds a utilitarian, not a rights-based, approach. Desired outcome can permit race-based selection.
    3) The Michigan vote was only 58% and can easily change. The Court isn’t protecting rights but allowing unlimited democracy which has temporarily voted the right way.

    The right results (upholding the elimination of race-based criteria) for the wrong reasons.

    • tagalog

      Well said on the direct democracy observation.

    • truebearing

      Well said. I might not say it was a “terrible ruling” because it is going in the right direction, but you are absolutely correct in the rest of your analysis.

    • Joe The Gentile

      >> Desired outcome can permit race-based selection.

      Yes, the ‘Anointed’ judges of the Supreme Court decided some time ago that they can put the constitution on hold for a ‘desired outcome’.

      The absurdity of their position is stunning. The idea that the constitution can be suspended for utilitarian reasons is contradictory to the purpose of the constitution itself. AS IF Congress does not always have its own ‘utilitarian reasons’ for any way Congress would like to breach the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to reign in Congress from breaching the constitution. It decided instead that the constitution can indeed be breached, provided that the Supreme Court gives the nod!

      What the SC said a while back was tantamount to saying that the Supreme Court’s suspension of the constitution in this area does have a time limit—of about 25 years!

      One reason the SC may be reluctant to roll back on the get-out-of-constitution card they granted for the foreseeable future is the embarrassment to the institution of the Supreme Court itself. It may not be easy for the Supreme Court to admit that they suspended the constitution.

    • SFLBIB

      Just you wait. “Randy Townsend” above cited California’s Prop 209, but he didn’t mention the part about the UC administration’s ignoring the law and doing just what they wanted.

      “Stasi apparatchiks disappeared more meekly after the Soviet Empire’s collapse than California’s race commissars have retreated after voters tried to oust their preference regime. ”
      “Affirmative Action Showdown”
      By Heather MacDonald
      City Journal | January 30, 2007
      archive . frontpagema g .com/readArticle . aspx?ARTID=390

  • bigfred41

    It won’t be long before we’ll be seeing AA hiring quotas for gays.

    Mozilla (having forced out its Christian CEO to appease gays) is already institutiing its “Ascend Project” which has as its main rule: NO STRAIGHT WHITES ALLOWED.

    • SFLBIB

      Ever hear of “needed diversity”?

  • Randy Townsend

    Take a look at what’s going on in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, where I reside. Voters approved a ban on racial set asides in education admissions and used academic qualifications only (for the most part) (Prop 209). The result? Black and latino admission to colleges and universities dropped significantly, but admission of asians jumped. Now, the black and latino politicians want to get back to color-matters admissions, but the asian pols said “NO WAY!” and it stopped. After almost 50 years of “The Great Society” money expenditure, under performing minorities STILL want special treatment. Well, the SC isn’t always right, but 6 of them got this right. You should earn your way into college due to effort, not skin color. “Bout time….

  • glpage

    Affirmative action assumes a minority person does not have the ability to compete on a level playing field. Many people have shown that that is a false assumption. It also has been shown that AA often puts people into a position where they are set up to fail; if you don’t have the preparation or ability to perform required tasks, such as carrying a course load for which one is unprepared to handle, you probably won’t succeed.

    We need to improve the educational system of this country so it will give anyone who is willing to work the sort of education that will prepare them for higher education or the work force.

    There is no such thing as equality, people are not equal, but there can and should be equal opportunity.

    • SFLBIB

      “We need to improve the educational system of this country so it will
      give anyone who is willing to work the sort of education that will
      prepare them for higher education or the work force.”

      Is race (and not culture) really the problem?

      I used to be a first level engineering supervisor of about 15 engineers and techs; three of the engineers under me were Vietnamese, two of them were women. They were my best workers. The man was promoted to my position after I left. They all had come to the US as children of boat people who fled the communists after the fall of Saigon. They all spoke with slight accents, so I know English was their second language. Success was only one generation away for them as a group.

      The thought occurred to me that since they obviously went through the American public school system for a good portion of their education (including college), public schools must be providing the information necessary to be successful. Then I recalled an article about 15 years prior in Scientific American entitled, “Why Vietnamese Children Succeed in American Schools Where Others Fail.” The family placed great emphasis on learning; there was an accompanying photo of a whole family studying around a small kitchen table. Their attitude was, “yes, there is racial discrimination in America, but overcome it with education.” Of course, this was all just before Leftists really took control and created victimology and furthered attitudes like the ones held by Latino parents in the Vista (CA) school system:

      “VISTA – Parents of Latino students at Vista’s (CA) most ethnically diverse school are incensed over a campaign by other parents to preserve an honors program there. … The proposal to dismantle the Gifted and Talented Education, or GATE, program at the school is
      supported by the Latino parents, opposed by parents of the GATE students. … ‘All students should be treated equally,’ Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. ‘We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less.’”

      “GATE Closing Plan”
      signonsandiego . com/news/education/20050519-9999-1mi19vusd . html

      There is no shortage of educational opportunities in the US, and it’s never been easier for ANY minority to get a high school diploma, go to college, and get hired than it is today. All one need do is apply himself.

      • David Coates

        “The proposal to dismantle the Gifted and Talented Education, or GATE, program at the school is supported by the Latino parents, opposed by parents of the GATE students. … ‘All students should be treated equally….” I hope they realize that this could cut in precisely the opposite direction. Once a while I run into some of my old high school teachers, and they have informed me that there are far more AP options at my alma mater than when I was in school, so that it’s possible for a senior to have a schedule that consists of AP calculus, AP statistics, AP physics, AP chemistry, AP American government, AP English literature, and AP French. Wouldn’t it be great if we could force _every_ student to carry that load, so that we’re not allowing the bright students to self-select away from the dim ones? Granted, this would guarantee that two-thirds would flunk, but _at least they’d all be equal._

        • SFLBIB

          As economist Vilfredo Pareto once said, “If people are made equal, they will be made equal at a low level.” This was one of the lessons of Animal Farm.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris Shugart

    There’s such an easy workaround to all race based lawmaking. Anytime you need to fill in the “race” blank in whatever form you’re filling out, just enter whatever race you think will work to your advantage. There’s no legal recourse to that.

    • Gislef

      Except for those forms that say it’s illegal to lie on the form. Typically government forms.

      • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris Shugart

        How would a govt. entity prove that I’m lying? They couldn’t. They’d have to take my word for it.

        • tagalog

          Don’t give away the federal government’s greatest weakness…

      • SFLBIB

        Actually, the individual self-identifies. In one of my mandatory EEO classes, someone asked how race and ethnicity were determined, and the answer was whatever group the individual most closely associated himself with.

  • NAHALKIDES

    This is also a golden opportunity for Republicans to be on the right side of a “wedge issue” (one that makes apparent how far to the Left of the public the Democratic Party is). They should support an end to race-based preferences, enjoy the support of a majority of Americans, and get to see the Democrats’ heads explode with un-righteous indignation. Of course, that would take guts, and the Republican Establishment has viewed “Affirmative Action” as another third rail.

  • Jdcsa usayy

    Just think it only took 50 years to begin, begin ending racially motivated discrimination AGAINST WHITES. In an age when we are told the worse sin of all is racism, racism against WHITES was made the law, defended and praised as being a good thing. Elections through the South have been skewed in favor of Democrats and against Republicans because the federal government overrules the most common sense efforts by the states to fight voter fraud claiming they are motivated by racism (anti Black racism, of course).
    50 years of discrimination against Whites and our children are still going around being told American is a racists (anti Black) society.
    Look up “Operation American Spring” on Google or Bing, 16 May 2014 in Washington DC. Be there to PEACEFULLY but forcefully demand that Obama and his junta resign, leave town and never return.
    For Christ sake patriots, stop talking and fight back! While we still have a country we can claim as our own.

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    Jim Crow rides again.

    • Drakken

      Please explain to the rest of us on how the black community is raising itself by the boot straps to get out of poverty? Have you had a gander of Detroit? How about Chitown? Yeah, that is what I thought, you want to ignore it in the hopes that it all goes away and no one will notice, let the Balkanization continue, for you won’t like where it ends up.

  • delm31_nabla@yahoo.com

    All the progress of the 20th Century is being thrown out in the 21st. Welcome back to the dark ages.

    • SFLBIB

      I would say all the hard-learned lessons of the last 200 generations of Western Civilization. And only one generation thinks it knows it all.

    • Drakken

      The 3rd world is the one trying to take us back to the dark ages, you call dumbing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator out of some sense of white guilt is a good thing? You have a lot to learn, and unfortunately, it will be the hard way.

  • Maynard

    How did someone (Justice Sotomayor) who is so ignorant of the US constitution become a Justice of the Supreme Court? No wonder this country if going down the sewer so rapidly.

    • Goldcoaster

      how else. obambi appointed her.

    • SFLBIB

      How? AA.

  • Goldcoaster

    Its a great day to be an American.

  • JVR

    Of course, with the changing demography AA will come back with a vengeance a decade or two down the line…

    • Drakken

      We don’t have that long, things are about to get a lot worse, especially with the economy.

  • edgineer

    Always amazed me that Democrats convinced the country we could cure racism by being racist.

  • SFLBIB

    “’This is a terrible ruling,’ he
    contended. ‘It gives the white majority the right to deny black and
    Latinos the right to higher education.’”

    Instead of engaging in hand-wringing and political machinations, why can’t minorities just hit the books. Asians are proof-positive that a non-white minority can succeed in this country.

  • quillerm

    Kids that work hard, get good grades and keep out of trouble should be able to attend college based on their grades and achievements. Why must they be denied access due to race, that is the worse type of hypocrisy.

    • quillerm

      If Diversity means to discriminate against a group of qualified students that have met academic standards based on their skin color, it must be stopped. The US is populated with many diverse cultures, religions, traditions, and political beliefs. Universities have become liberal indoctrination camps where conservative professors are denied tenure and speakers are shouted down by radical leftist extremists..