“In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
— Justice Harry Blackmun, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) concurring and dissenting in part.
“There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”
— Justice John Marshall Harlan, Plessy v. Ferguson,(1896), dissenting
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
— Chief Justice John Roberts, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, But It Bends Toward Justice.
— Attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr, and othersThis Independence Day will be celebrated as it has for the past 247 years, but it is especially significant this year. This is thanks to the United States Supreme Court for re-affirming several of the core principles of the Declaration of Independence as ensconced in law by our Constitution. This past week the Court re-affirmed our freedom of speech and expression, or more particularly, freedom not to speak or express a viewpoint; it ruled that the President of the United States is not a dictator who can give away tax money; that is, private property lawfully collected for public purposes; and, most momentously, ended a patently racist policy that had continued to exist despite the end of legal segregation and enactment of laws against racial discrimination.
There are many talking heads who say that we have “systemic” or “institutional” racism in this country. If one believes that, then he must agree that a truly “systemic” example of racism is the so-called affirmative action programs that many institutions of higher learning (and indeed government agencies and many private businesses) use in an attempt to remedy past discrimination on the basis of race. Programs that do currently penalize some individuals on the basis of their race or skin color do no favors to those such programs are supposed to help. Affirmative Action programs have existed for both virtue-signaling, and for political purposes. As the famous Watergate era informant said: “Follow the money.” There is a lot of money to be made in race-baiting.
In the ruling and opinion announced in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and a companion case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (June 29, 2023), the Supreme Court abolished the use of race as a basis for choosing who will be admitted to colleges and universities. This result affirmed the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and requirements of our Constitution.
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed his earlier view quoted above, vindicated Justice Harlan, and repudiated Justice Blackmun. The majority opinion and the concurrences further repudiated the concept of collectivism based on an individual’s immutable physical properties.
Among the observations Chief Justice Roberts made in his majority opinion is that “Harvard’s admissions process rest on the pernicious stereotype that ‘a black student can usually bring something that a white student cannot offer.’ [citations omitted] UNC is much the same. It argues that race in itself ‘says something about who you are.” Roberts goes on to approvingly quote a 1995 opinion ‘One of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.’ But when a university admits students ‘on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that [students] of a particular race, because of their race, think alike.’”
It should be obvious to anyone who keeps up with current events and reads/sees/hears media — especially outside their bubble — that such a stereotype is untrue. Justice Clarence Thomas is the prime example here. (His concurrence, albeit lengthy, is worth a read.) But economists like Thomas Sowell and the late Walter Williams, educators Ward Connerly and Marva Collins, and commentators Jason Riley and Shelby Steele when contrasted with the opinions of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibrim X. Kendi, certainly belie any notion that skin color is determinative of an individual’s ideas and attitudes.
Racism, properly defined, is anathema to a free society. Here it is worth quoting parts of a 1963 essay by Ayn Rand written in the middle of the civil rights movement of that era.
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
The Court’s opinion was specific to college admission and arguably not precedent for other contexts such as hiring in private industry. Nevertheless, the color-blind principle appears to be applicable there, particularly where a private firm receives government or state largesse, but that is a controversy and case for another time. But in this case, the arc has indeed bent toward justice. It is indeed a happy Independence Day
Note: the July 2, 2023 issue of The Wall Street Journal included the commentary “Is Your Company’s DEI Program Lawful” Austin, Texas lawyer Michael Toth concludes, in view of these Students for Fair Admissions cases’ application of Title VI, probably not. DEI will DIE — ignominiously.
