Victory For Affirmative Action?
By Peter and Helen Evans (06/28/03)
The big-ticket liberal academics gathered at Charlie Rose's round table that night were scared. They circled their wagons around his hospitable campfire and were quick to claim that day's Supreme Court decision as a vindication of their own beliefs.
Each in turn dutifully asserted the party line, "of course, this decision marks a resounding victory for affirmative action." You could tell, by watching their shifting eyes and listening to their uncertain tones, that they were whistling past the cemetery. If you could have found an honest Liberal that (or any) night, the best they would say is that the decision represented a "stay of execution" for affirmative action.
It is desperately important for the Left-academic establishment to claim victory for their side, then they may be able to eke out a few sunset years of ideological hegemony in the American academy. It is a matter of political survival for the Left, in general, to convince people that the highest court in the land actually DID endorse "affirmative action." If they and their media allies can stage-manage this illusion, they might still have a plank to stand on in the next election cycle. They live in hope that people will not be inclined to discover the truth for themselves, by actually reading the Supreme Court's decision. [http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-241#FRother2.12]
Perhaps they can take some of the credit for how easily America's current crop of graduates could be discouraged from trying to read this interesting document. Predictably, it was the product of a 5-to-4 decision, swung, many believe, by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan-era appointee, who delivered the Court's opinion on June 23, 2003.
On that day, "affirmative action," that is, racial discrimination as practiced by the board of admissions at the University of Michigan was struck down. That institution's practice (of making a gift of 20 points toward the required minimum of 150 points to applicants who happened to belong to selected minorities) was judged, by the United States Supreme Court, to be un-constitutional. In the same judgment, the University of Michigan Law School's "race-conscious admissions program" was recognized for what it is: politically-correct window-dressing. It was concluded that this bit of public-relations fluff "does not unduly harm" other applicants. All in all, this is NOT the "resounding victory" that the liberals are claiming!
The judgment immediately goes on to say, "Finally, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
Let's not be distracted by quibbling about why they're letting the University of Michigan "get away with it" for another 25 years. What the Court really said about affirmative action is, "You know it's wrong; we know it's wrong; and you're going to kick this bad habit."
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
