Back in 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban state-funded, public colleges and universities from considering race when deciding whether or not to accept a student applicant. You would think that we would all be glad to live in an age when colleges lived up to Martin Luther King’s dream to not consider the color of an applicant’s skin, but rather the content of their academic record.
But no. Even though it would be a crime for a college to turn away a black applicant because he was black, it was somehow necessary to accept a black applicant because he was black. And because colleges can accept only a finite number of students, this practice entailed turning down white students because they were white. No wonder Michigan residents decided to demand a change in the state constitution to eliminate these racist practices.
So people in favor of the racist practices sued on the theory that prohibiting college-entrance racism was unconstitutional. This made its way to the Supreme Court. 6-2 they decided in favor of the right of Michigan voters to decide for themselves what entrance requirements they wanted their schools to apply (Elena Kagan recused herself). According to Politico.com:
“The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.” Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy … It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”
So nothing here was said against the idea or practice of making racial identity a reason to prefer a college applicant. I can only assume that the Supreme Court would reverse themselves and come up with a reason to forbid such a practice if public universities favored majorities.
But even merely allowing the states to democratically decide to have racially blind admission policies was some kind of threat against civilization as far as Sotomayor was concerned. She read her dissent out loud. It was longer than the other four written opinions put together. According to AP:
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically.
“But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.
Everyone should know that majorities can oppress minorities. That’s why we need the government to acknowledge limits so that, no matter what the majority want, the government is forbidden from doing unjust things—like taxing people unequally or imposing racial quotas on college student bodies.
But for Sotomayor, you are oppressing a minority if you don’t prefer them over a non-minority in the college application process. This insane idea is “justified”—if the line of reasoning deserves such a term—by the history of racism and alleged racism that exists now.
Of course, if it is racist not to give preferential treatment to minority races, then I can hardly argue against the presence of racism according to that insane definition. When do we ever get to outgrow the sins of history for people possessed by this mindset? You know the answer: never. In fact, it is the gift that keeps on giving since past racial grievances are used to justify a trail of ever new racial grievances. The losers in this situation are all members of peaceful society, whatever their race. The winner is the state, which pacifies society by keeping various members at odds with one another by its race-based devices.
Ironically, the AP story went on in the very next paragraph to mention real inequality in our society and treat it as if it didn’t matter:
Judges “ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society,” Sotomayor said. She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.
We have thousands of schools in this country, but only graduates from a handful of Ivy League schools get to be nominated as Supreme Court Justices. Do you really think there are no judges who graduated from other law schools who are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Conveniently for the regime, people who go to Yale or Harvard or Princeton are not marked out by race or ethnicity in every individual case. So they can pretend to diversity on the Supreme Court when they are actually one monolithic ruling regime.
Someone can try to argue this difference between Sotomayor and Ginsburg and the rest constitutes “diversity,” but that is nonsense. They all believe that a public institution has the right to feed on taxpayers while discriminating against some taxpayers and in favor of others. They all have a common philosophy, in other words, of tyranny. Their difference over application, though it is a happy thing for Michigan residents, doesn’t change their monolithic and discriminatory make-up.
A real blow for social justice would be struck by banning any graduates from Ivy League schools from holding any office in government for the next century. Now that would be a real attempt to deal with a history of inequality in the United States!