Preferring To Discriminate
By Trevor Bothwell (06/30/03)
Nothing so underscores the importance of nominating federal judges who are dedicated to adhering to the constructs of the Constitution than the ruling on Monday (June 23) by the Supreme Court to uphold the use of affirmative action policies in university admissions.
While the Court overturned a point system employed by the University of Michigan that grants preference to African American, Hispanic and Native American undergraduate applicants, its ruling on the practices of the university’s law school virtually rewrote the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws.” Or at least it used to.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the Court’s majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, claimed the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Interestingly, it should be apparent to anyone merely skimming the Constitution that it explicitly prohibits racial discrimination. Whereas affirmative action was originally intended to make amends for past wrongs committed against black Americans, it was assumed that it would exist temporarily. However, with the success that most working minorities have enjoyed in the United States, combined with the increasingly diverse landscape of immigrants to the country, the perceived need for original affirmative action procedures has waned tremendously.
As it has become increasingly difficult to sell the public on the merits of affirmative action (a recent survey indicates that Americans oppose giving preferences to minorities by a count of 3 to1), minority advocates have settled on the concept of “diversity” to safeguard against any potential reduction in racial preferences for non-whites, whether it be in the workplace or in the classroom.
But what have not been considered fully are the supposed benefits that “diversity” brings to students, or anyone else for that matter. Moreover, how does the recognition of this concept justify discriminating against not only whites, but also against those who don’t fall into the category of preferred minorities, like Asians and Arabs? I’m all for diversity and the acceptance of others, but I started interacting with all different kinds of people by the time I was ten years old simply by accompanying my mother to the mall and to the grocery store. Do we really need to condone state-sponsored discrimination just to further the notion that, ironically, we’d all be racists without it?
If universities admitted all students based on their various statistical representations in society, it would guarantee that image of a “diverse” student body they purport to covet. Of course, this practice would perversely discriminate against students of all races equally by shutting out some applicants whose racial category was already filled, even if they meritoriously outperformed students filling the slots of other racial groups. This may seem like an awkward means of selecting students, but it would be hard to argue that the school wouldn’t go on to foster a “cross-racial understanding,” in the words of Justice O’Connor, which she thinks will help “to break down racial stereotypes.”
However, the problem with university admissions, and even the hypothetical situation outlined above, is that all applicants are not likely to be even relatively qualified. So problems naturally arise when schools admit underqualified candidates over qualified ones to satisfy their appetite for a campus the “looks like America.” Add to this the expectation that many Americans oddly expect colleges to place academic credentials above pious desires for social engineering, and you’ll find that students will eventually tire of these discriminatory practices.
Which leads to the most distressing result of affirmative action policies. Justice O’Connor believes that balancing a classroom with a fabricated mixture of racial and ethnic groups will break down racial stereotypes. On the contrary, it will only lead to more severe stereotyping of minorities. Instead of being accepted as peers and equals, minorities will consistently be perceived as inferior and unable to compete without a handout, regardless of whether they were actually admitted on merit alone or as a result of Constitutionally-sanctioned bigotry.
Attaining a diverse student body at the university level is nowhere near as important as admitting students who meet meritorious standards set by the school. Studies have shown that lowering standards for minorities vastly increases their likelihood of dropping out before graduation, and it eventually lowers academic expectations for everyone else.
But these problems don’t just begin after high school. Any lack of diversity at the university level does not nearly indicate a need for affirmative action as much as it signifies how much we continue to fail at educating our K-12 students. The same forces that push for race-based admissions policies in our universities are the same that aggravate racial disparities in the K-12 grades. Public schools resist drill and practice instruction and fact-based teaching, opting instead for holistic strategies that rely on “cooperation” and the application of “background knowledge.”
No students suffer from these “progressive” teaching methods more than minority kids, especially those in the inner cities. Many of these children live in poverty and don’t have the capacity to bring stylish background experiences to the classroom. Consequently, they’re often left to figure out for themselves how to solve problems. Children need to be taught explicit facts and information, including spelling, reading and geography, all of which are either deplorably taught or non-existent in many classrooms today.
Now consider that these students rise through the school ranks, keeping in mind that their understanding of American history, if not distorted by leftist instructors, may be treacherously low. How much do these kids learn about Jim Crow today? They attend fully integrated schools; they often date interracially. In short, they’re likely the generation with the least racial bones in their bodies. Now they take their SATs, apply to colleges, and many of them watch their friends get accepted to a college they were rejected from, simply because they have a lower melanin count. And we wonder why we’re starting to see segregated high school proms again?
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote what is (even for her) possibly the meanest indictment of a person imaginable. Criticizing Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Grutter case, Dowd states, “He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.” She continues, “It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race.”
Sadly, the same “liberals” who would rejoice in one man’s supposed insecurity at the hands of affirmative action are the first in line to ensure that minorities are cast in this light in perpetuity.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Trevor Bothwell
