Friday, April 2, 2010

BURN: Obama's Post-Racial Discrimination

Racism is alive and vigorous in the Obama administration, and in the broader American collective. 
The Obama administration has asked a federal appeals court to uphold a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin, aiming to stymie a lawsuit that conservatives hope will spur the Supreme Court to limit affirmative action at public colleges.
The Texas case tests a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Michigan Law School. That ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger said the law school had “a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.” By a 5-4 vote, the court prohibited “outright racial balancing,” but said race could be a “plus” factor to build a “critical mass” of minority students.
The Fifth Circuit Court has been one of the better Federal appeals courts.  They will hear a case with loopy arguments like this...
The Obama administration agrees. “[The] university’s [University Of Texas...natch] effort to promote diversity is a paramount government objective,” says the brief filed by the Education and Justice departments. The administration disputed claims that Texas was simply engaging in raw racial preferences.
“The question is not whether an individual belongs to a racial group, but rather how an individual’s membership in any group may provide deeper understanding of the person’s record and experiences, as well as the contribution she can make to the school,” the brief says.

Now, any way you boil that down, it always comes back to the simple use of RACE as a determinant of who should be given a boost, and the necessary corollary that RACE will be used to determine who will be disadvantaged.

When I attended law school, one of my section-mates was a beautiful black young lady.  Both of her parents were tenured professors at a prominent southern university.  The city in which she grew up was MAJORITY black.  But, by virtue of her skin color alone, she presumptively brought "diversity" into the law school environment.  Everyone, including herself, had to wonder if she made it into the class on the color of her skin in the final analysis (I know, because we discussed it).  And NOBODY could argue with a straight face that she was "diverse" from other privileged kids from "rich" (by Deemocrat standards) families, who grew up in a liberal enclave where their parents were part of the intelligentsia.  The kids from that kind of background in the class were utterly HOMOGENIZED in their thinking.  It didn't matter a fig what color their skin was.

So, even IF we accede to the incredible notion that "to promote diversity is a paramount government objective" (I cannot imagine a statement with which I more violently disagree, BTW), there can be no argument that we go about obtaining "diversity" by using RACE as a criteria.

What we do...under institutionalize RACISM, granting racial preference under law.

h/t Contentions 

No comments:

Post a Comment