Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)

Saturday Night Card Game (Will banning racism be held racist?)

The Supreme Court has another affirmative action case on its docket for next term, as explained by Jennifer Gratz (the plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger / U. Michigan), The two-faced defense of affirmative action (emphasis added):

Though last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas was not what many people expected, it provided a firm reminder to universities that race preferences are barely tolerated and must ultimately give way to equal treatment and race-neutral policies.

This fall, the Supreme Court faces an even bigger test of its determination to support equality when it hears Schuette v. Michigan Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a case challenging the right of a state (in this case, Michigan) to pass a constitutional ban on race preferences, or affirmative action, in its public institutions.

In 2006, Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI, or Prop 2), which established:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” ….

The challenge to the MCRI is a different story.

BAMN insists that the amendment is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because the legal impact of banning race preferences falls wholly upon, and thus targets, certain powerless minorities. Here, the foundation of their argument is that preferences are in fact maintained not for society as a whole but for the benefit of specific minorities.

Supporters of race preferences now have conflicting arguments. They’ve argued before the Supreme Court that race preferences are primarily for the benefit of everyone. But in the fall they will argue in front of the same court that race preferences are primarily for the benefit of minorities.

(ScotusBlog page for the Schuette case here)

That’s right folks, the Supreme Court will decide whether prohibiting racism is, in effect, racist.

I have bemoaned the pernicious effects of race-based preferences here many times. The Schuette case demonstrates how the racial preference industry has turned everything on its head. 

To be non-racist will get you accused of being racist.

To want to live Dr. King’s Dream that each child be judged on the content of his or her character not skin color now will find you on the defensive end of a lawsuit.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is such b.s.

All this is about is enabling the race industry and the hate-base of the democrat party. And our president.

[…] Legal Insurrection points to the abject farce of Affirmative action. First, the Daily Caller: […]

“BAMN insists that the amendment is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because the legal impact of banning race preferences falls wholly upon, and thus targets, certain powerless minorities.”

Or, to equally protect us all, some of us have to have “special” protections from the rest of us.

This is essentially Critical Race Theory in application.

“Separate and unequal” because…race. We cannot be a people, because…race. There cannot be a rational set of laws, because…race.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2013 at 2:59 am

    It also sets out a standard that any special benefit conferred to minorities can never be taken away, even if its every goal has been met, since ending a special favoritism will always “disparately impact” those who are getting the benefit.

    The Catch-22 of the Welfare State.

Humphreys Executor | July 6, 2013 at 7:16 pm

The whole notion of race preferences in support of diversity is based on stereo typing. Its based on the flawed idea that you belong to a certain race, you must have certain believes or values that are different from people of another race.

Asininities of the Human Kind.

Starring Al Sharpton, He of One Name, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee and a host of others. Special guest performance for one night only (drumroll please) Chris Matthews.

This gives me a headache. It reminds me of the discussions about symphony auditions and how the blind auditions don’t work (even when they told the candidates to remove their shoes so the clack of the heels would not indicate male or female potentially). The resulting blind auditions did not result in a completely diverse set of people so it must be racist (you can google blind auditions, symphony, and racism to see the arguments).

Basically Asians ended up over represented and other groups ended up under represented. I think we may never get to the point where people are just people and judged on their individual merits without bring up the race card until people who have made their fortunes on race baiting are retired (Al, Jesse, and etc).

Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

“Certain powerless minorities”? So basically the argument is that certain minorities are “powerless” to meet the same standards as every other applicant for jobs, school admissions, etc.

Here’s a thought. Instead of demanding that the state lower standards for “certain minorities,” how about if members of those “certain minorities” start working harder to meet, or exceed, the standards applied to everybody else. (If those “certain minorities” need a minority group to emulate, look to the Asian-Americans as an example; they seem to have it figured out).

Why not empower yourselves, certain minorities, instead of continuing to demand that you be judged by lower standards than everyone else? Do that and you won’t be “powerless” anymore.

    Anchovy in reply to Observer. | July 6, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    What a wonderful world it would be if the young people in the inner cities were as willing to wait in line and camp out in front of a book store for the release of Thomas Sowell’s newest book as they are for a pair of Air Jordan shoes.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Anchovy. | July 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm

      No style in that. Keeping it real is the dominant style imposed by force of peer pressure, and Sowell is educated, aka, acting white.

      It’s sad. Heartbreaking. But, inner city folks have to sleep on the bed they made. If that means they remain a permanent underclass, that is their choice cuz the ethos you live by is the one that brings you the results with which you have to live.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Observer. | July 6, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    Nothing a little hard work and ambition won’t cure.

I think I’ll just post the following verbatim without reiterating the original context. Perhaps the people and groups who exploit the concept of “race” to advance their political, economic, and social standing will recognize their corruption and seek redemption.

It’s all potentially dual-use. The distinguishing feature is intent.

As for race, it is tribal. There is no singular “black” people, or “African” people, etc. Anyone who does not recognize the diversity of people, beginning with the individual, continuing to the family, and to higher (i.e. artificial) levels of organization, in this world is either ignorant or opportunistic.

That said, when Obama advised the Kenyans to normalize homosexual behavior, they rejected the proposal from a confused, wayward man. Obama is “black”. Kenyans are “black”. They are not of the same tribe.

The notion of “race” is designed to hide the diversity of individuals, but with what intent? Homogenization — a reduction of diversity.

Race-based criteria is antithetical to the spirit and practice of democracy. Who are these Democrats?

Henry Hawkins | July 6, 2013 at 8:38 pm

What, you think Jacobson would have gotten the Cornell law gig if he wasn’t a Cherokee Jew? C’mon…

I’m with Frederick Douglass here:

“What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us…. I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … Your interference is doing him positive injury.”

–Frederick Douglass, The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro

    Juba Doobai! in reply to snopercod. | July 6, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    That’s where I stand, too, after trying to help and being kicked in the teeth because, tho’ the skin color was the right one, the language skills shouted “coconut!” So, no more extended hand, if you want it, get up and get!

      Sunlight78 in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 6, 2013 at 11:16 pm

      I am almost afraid to ask what coconut means…

        Sunlight78 in reply to Sunlight78. | July 6, 2013 at 11:22 pm

        I have some friends I met in college who were called oreos in certain groups and they were treated very badly by some people because they studied hard and were excellent students. They ended up being engineers and lawyers and they had no need of any quota. The places that hired them were lucky to get them.

        I am wondering if the phrase you were called is something similar though I have never heard anyone mention that one.

Carol Herman | July 6, 2013 at 8:55 pm

Not a lawyer. But living in California where Prop 8 was supposed to be the last word in “marriages are not between same sex couples.” And, we know how such a majority got to toss away minority rights, willy nilly.

So, here, you have a Michigan case, trying to standardize admissions policies … WHERE WE KNOW LEGACY FAMILIES GET ADMITTED TO ALL THE IVY’S … even when said “legacy recipients” are jerks.

Are some homosexuals jerks? Sure. But who am I to say they can’t choose to be unhappily married?

I’m almost willing to guess in the case up ahead the SCOTUS will gut individual voters from having their views becoming mainstream law, with vehicles like PROP THIS. And, PROP THAT. Let the legislatures do it.

Isn’t it better, all around, to make voters concentrate on individual candidates?

Oh, and Blacks gotta do more than gain entrance based on basketball skills. (I know. Sports programs pay for themselves.) While Asian students need to excel academically, so that they make the cut.

I just shake my head. Because I have no easy answers. (Maybe, high school should stop passing classroom dreck that can’t write an essay in cursive? That show an intolerance for American culture. And, “get by” by memorizing “just enough” to get to the next level.) In my book Dee-Dee did more harm to her own community than ours.

Carol Herman | July 6, 2013 at 8:59 pm

Here, we watched JAG Carter demonstrate EXCELLENCE. I’m going to guess he got into law school based on a quota system. SO WHAT? If Affirmative Action is what gave JAG Carter the opportunity to become a prosecutor in our military, WOWZA, we did something right.

    Estragon in reply to Carol Herman. | July 7, 2013 at 3:06 am

    That’s terribly unfair to Carter, who you just admitted demonstrates excellence. Why assume it wasn’t that excellence that got him into law school. The military pays for qualified people’s professional training all the time in exchange for extended commitments to serve.

      Yukio Ngaby in reply to Estragon. | July 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm

      “Why assume it wasn’t that excellence that got him into law school.”

      Carol doesn’t assume that because Carter is black.

    ConradCA in reply to Carol Herman. | July 8, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Part of the problem with institutional racism, AKA affirmative action, is that it creates a reasonable expectation of racial inferiority. The idea that minorities only got their position because of affirmative action is perfectly reasonable. Just look at Tyrant Obama as proof that this thesis is correct.

PersonFromPorlock | July 6, 2013 at 9:59 pm

The opinion in Loving v. Virginia reads in part: “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination….”

But with the importance now given to diversity, doesn’t preserving racial purity (if we’re all Tiger Woods, there’s nobody to be diverse with) become that “legitimate overriding purpose?”

The idea that ‘diversity’ justifies anti-miscegenation laws is, of course, ridiculous: but it’s logical enough to twit the bien pensant with.

DINORightMarie | July 7, 2013 at 12:04 am

Having just looked at college tuition for various out of state universities, I can say it is definitely economically favorable to be ANYTHING BUT a white person. No white privilege to be found!

Any minority will get several THOUSANDS of dollars in discounts, or tuition reduction – often receiving in-state tuition – just for being a certain color or race/ethnicity. If you don’t believe me, pick a college with a “net price calculator” and plug in some numbers with NO box “checked” and then try again with a box “checked” – big difference, I assure you.

Given that, it is indeed tempting to want to “check the box” when it’s about saving tens of thousands of dollars a year for college tuition. But then I would never lower myself to Lizzie’s standards. 😉

All because we want to be “fair” or have “diversity” on campuses, along with racial “balance” and “equality.”

Socialist terms, all.

    Michiguy in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Any minority will get several THOUSANDS of dollars in discounts, or tuition reduction – often receiving in-state tuition – just for being a certain color or race/ethnicity

    ANY minority or “under-represented” minorities? East Asian and Indian or Pakistani-descended folks do NOT get preferential admissions or race-based scholarships. Regarding college admissions, quite the opposite of preferential, as there is an embarrassingly high proportion of yeller and brown folks, especially at elite institutions — throws off the racial discrimination narrative, and all.

Are the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Acts also unconstitutional – LOL

Bruce Hayden | July 7, 2013 at 2:22 pm

A bt scary to me, but if you haven’t read this long post on teaching in a majority black under class school at Before-It’s-Deleted Of The Day a couple of days ago, I suggest that you read it It is pretty chilling, esp. in view of the present discussion about race. To summerize very briefly, his experiences teaching in such a school were quite worrisome. A lot of the girls were greatly overweight and just wating to get pregnant so that they could get public assistance, and the boys would fight each other at the drop of a hat. No matter how hard the teacher and school district would try to tailor the curriculum to their black sensitivities, working hard was what white people did, and anything that they didn’t like or didn’t like to do was considered racist anc/or white.

Read it and form your own opinion.

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm

JAG Carter is black. And, yes, I am assuming because of his skin color, this excellent candidate advanced. And, I also assume that if you take this away, a lot of EXCELLENT Black candidates will fall through the cracks.

The other thing I do notice is that however the “Gratz” case turns out, we could see a split another split decision. Again, with the 5/4. (Or if one needs to be recused, then 4/4) outcomes. There used to be a time the Supreme Court, when it had “split” decisions, would split along 7/2 lines. (Justice O’Douglas (sp), always ran counter to the opinions of others. Sometimes his descents sat there, all alone.

Once upon a time old decisions kept rolling themselves into new ones. But that’s gone, now. And, I don’t think since Rehnquist, we’ve actually seen ANY Supreme Court decision reach the levels of genius we used to get … Also, all before Justice Warren reached the big bench. And, diminished it.

Just a personal opinion.

As race has no scientific basis, I would like to know how a person’s race is determined? Man originated in Africa so doesn’t that make everyone African or African-American? Seems to me this is the simple solution to ending this form of racism, affirmative action. Everyone should discover that they are African-Americans.

healthguyfsu | July 8, 2013 at 11:34 pm

Food for thought for data lovers like myself.

Basically, reinforces that white liberals are driving the anti-racism agenda in order to feel superior to other whites.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324853704578587610461933172.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend