More than 90% of the population of Iowa is white. Just over 2% are black. Yet in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, the only black candidate in the race enjoyed a resounding political victory. What more proof do we need that for all intents and purposes, racism against blacks in American is dead and gone?
Following the civil rights movement in the sixties, the Boomer generation was rightly reeducated that all Americans are created equal, regardless of race or gender. Older generations were harder to convince, but most of them have passed on now, leaving the previous prejudices that supported American apartheid long gone.
In more recent decades, whites have been doing their best to prove that they are fair to minorities, and, other than a few isolated criminal cases, have been predominantly successful in doing so. The only ones not buying it seem to be the aging Civil Rights leaders, who recognize that if they declare victory (as they should do, particularly in light of recent events), they’re out of a job. Unfortunately for the nation, there’s not much likelihood of that happening anytime soon.
The Civil Rights movement was about equality, about everyone starting on a level playing field and having an equal chance to succeed or fail as their talents allowed. It was never supposed to be about one group getting special treatment over another, or about whites and blacks changing places as to who was the oppressor and who was the oppressed. Nor was it meant to guarantee that all blacks have happy and successful lives, any more than it’s possible for all whites to do so. It was only meant to give everyone the same opportunities to succeed.
Affirmative Action, that poorly-defined practice of discreetly using racial preference (even when it meant having to settle for less qualified applicants) in order to prove our fairness by the numbers (NEVER to be called a quota, of course), should not have been implemented in the first place. It contradicted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equality. Quite simply, racial preference is racial preference, regardless of which side of the coin you’re on. There’s no such thing as "reverse discrimination," only discrimination.
With the success of black Barack Obama in white Iowa, all Americans should be celebrating the death of Affirmative Action, and the confirmation that all of our nation’s efforts to distance ourselves from our racist past have, at last, succeeded. This is a watershed moment, the moment that our hard-fought battle has finally been won. It’s a wake that should be one heck of a party, and one all Americans should celebrate together.
It’s been a long time coming. We’ve waited impatiently for an entire white generation that didn’t want to give up their privileges to die off. It would be a shame and a disappointment if we have to wait for the current generation of equally intransigent black leaders to pass on or fade away into obscurity before the real celebration can begin. It would be positively legendary if they instead claimed victory and joined the party!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Monday, October 22, 2007
Some Speech is More Equal Than Others
If you’re reading this commentary in your favorite publication, consider yourself fortunate, because it means that the resident Opinion Editor is one of just a very few fair-minded individuals willing to let all opinions be heard, even the ones that might be critical of the industry that provides them with their creature comforts.
That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.
Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.
Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.
That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.
Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.
Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.
That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.
Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.
Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.
That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.
Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.
Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
What is Congress Thinking? Limbaugh is an Entertainer, Not an Elected Official
Politainment strikes again. Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative radio talk show jock, said something that offended some people the other day (is that surprising?). In response, the theoretically august body of the Congress (not the Democrat Party, mind you, but members of our duly elected Congress) offered up a demand for an apology from Limbaugh’s employer, Clear Channel Communications. Let’s say that again. The Congress of the United States wants an unelected (and unelectable) private citizen whose job it is to entertain people using whatever thought-provoking and often insensitive methods at his disposal to apologize for his "unconscionable" personal remarks on a political issue.
Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.
On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.
When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!
This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.
Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?
Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.
On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.
When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!
This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.
Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?
Saturday, September 1, 2007
"Politainment" a Real Danger to the Future of our Nation
In this craze to get people "engaged" in politics, we have turned down the extraordinarily dangerous path of mixing politics and entertainment in ways we have never before witnessed and which can’t possibly benefit us in the end.
Watching Hillary Clinton interviewing with Dave Letterman Thursday night was the last straw, albeit just a precursor of the election year to come. Do we really want our political leaders to behave like stand up comedians? Must we insist the minds of our candidates be diverted away from their serious job of being a leader to the opposite job of keeping us entertained? Don’t we already have enough professional performers to do that? If the only way to compel the voting public to become involved with politics it to turn our candidates into amateur entertainers, it’s a pathetic prospect for the future of our nation.
The trouble began when political operatives misinterpreted a whole lot of signs and concluded that being liked was the key to winning votes. That is a wrong assumption. The key to winning votes is to have a leader we respect. Ronald Reagan didn’t earn the votes of the opposition party because they liked him, they voted for him because they respected him. The fact that he was an amiable man was just frosting on the cake.
President Bush is an unfortunate case in point. His handlers worked overtime during his campaigns to make him a likable guy, the sort of guy you could have a beer with, like the guy next door. The point that the politicos have missed is that we don’t want the guy next door as president, we want someone better than that. We want someone who looks and behaves like a president. We want someone who wears the mantle with confidence, and who represents us around the world as the epitome of what an American should be. We want someone that everyone will respect, even if we disagree with their views on certain issues. In that, George Bush has failed miserably.
The same trap awaits the stable of presidential candidates as they face the coming year. Those same politicos (or their progeny) still haven’t learned their lesson. They are still insisting their candidates be "down to earth" in order to be liked by the common man. Worse, they think the way to do that is to turn their candidates into amateur entertainers, to keep the audiences laughing, thus proving their candidate is liked.
We need to maintain the separation between entertainment and politics, and recognize the difference between the two, even if we happen to see them both on the same TV. Otherwise, one day we’re likely to look up and find ourselves with a President whose only skills are in entertaining, and not governing, and that would surely be the beginning of the end of us as a respectable nation.
Watching Hillary Clinton interviewing with Dave Letterman Thursday night was the last straw, albeit just a precursor of the election year to come. Do we really want our political leaders to behave like stand up comedians? Must we insist the minds of our candidates be diverted away from their serious job of being a leader to the opposite job of keeping us entertained? Don’t we already have enough professional performers to do that? If the only way to compel the voting public to become involved with politics it to turn our candidates into amateur entertainers, it’s a pathetic prospect for the future of our nation.
The trouble began when political operatives misinterpreted a whole lot of signs and concluded that being liked was the key to winning votes. That is a wrong assumption. The key to winning votes is to have a leader we respect. Ronald Reagan didn’t earn the votes of the opposition party because they liked him, they voted for him because they respected him. The fact that he was an amiable man was just frosting on the cake.
President Bush is an unfortunate case in point. His handlers worked overtime during his campaigns to make him a likable guy, the sort of guy you could have a beer with, like the guy next door. The point that the politicos have missed is that we don’t want the guy next door as president, we want someone better than that. We want someone who looks and behaves like a president. We want someone who wears the mantle with confidence, and who represents us around the world as the epitome of what an American should be. We want someone that everyone will respect, even if we disagree with their views on certain issues. In that, George Bush has failed miserably.
The same trap awaits the stable of presidential candidates as they face the coming year. Those same politicos (or their progeny) still haven’t learned their lesson. They are still insisting their candidates be "down to earth" in order to be liked by the common man. Worse, they think the way to do that is to turn their candidates into amateur entertainers, to keep the audiences laughing, thus proving their candidate is liked.
We need to maintain the separation between entertainment and politics, and recognize the difference between the two, even if we happen to see them both on the same TV. Otherwise, one day we’re likely to look up and find ourselves with a President whose only skills are in entertaining, and not governing, and that would surely be the beginning of the end of us as a respectable nation.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Good News in Iraq is Bad News for Democrat Leaders
When two harsh critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war came back from an eight-day trip to Iraq and printed an op-ed article with the title "A War We Just Might Win" (NYTimes 7/30/07), most Americans cheered, grateful to see some progress, daring to dream that perhaps we could achieve some semblance of peace and cooperation in that worn-torn country.
But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.
It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.
Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.
On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.
Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.
But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.
It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.
Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.
On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.
Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Jihadist Doctors Just the Beginning of Future Terrorism
The recent failed attacks in Great Britain should be a stark realization of just how much patience and sacrifice our self-declared enemies are willing to practice in order to achieve their goal of a Muslim-dominated world, and it’s a lesson we had better take very seriously.
Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.
In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.
Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.
Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.
In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.
Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Supreme Court Tolls Death Knell for Affirmative Action
From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial back in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It became the dream of every proud American too, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 soon followed. The nation breathed a collective sigh of relief, trusting that the injustices of the past would soon fade away, and a better, stronger nation would emerge.
Our hopes were dashed when President Lyndon Johnson decided to reinterpret Title VII of that Civil Rights Act. Though it specifically stated that none of its provisions should be interpreted as requiring "preferential treatment" for any individual or group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (though obliquely did suggest that some form of "affirmative action" should be encouraged), Johnson decided to codify affirmative action remedies by issuing Executive Order #11246, which made it clear that set-asides, quotas and preferential treatment based on race should be used in order to accomplish his vision of "The Great Society."
In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why it wasn’t patently obvious that Johnson’s order to institutionalize racial preference was just such an injustice, whatever the well-intended reason, is hard to understand. Perhaps it was the guilt many thoughtful Americans felt for those past injustices that made us accept it, believing that at some, undefined point in the future, these measures would no longer be necessary. The problem is, once a group enjoys privileges for any reason, they are not going to willingly give them up.
There are no doubt many who will label these views as racist, and will point out the ongoing racial problems that exist in this country. I submit that the reason there are still racial problems in this country is because we are required by law to practice racial discrimination. The fact is, the last two generations have grown up restrained by institutionalized racism. Those given preferential treatment based on race learned from affirmative action that they are recognized by government as "inferior", incapable of succeeding without the "leg up" the law provided. Those on the other end learned that the law created unfairness, that no matter how hard they tried, someone could pass them merely because of their "preferred" race.
As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion of this landmark case from Seattle and Louisville schools systems this week, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It doesn’t get any plainer than that. We can only hope that this common sense attitude will spread across every walk of life, not just in school systems, and that soon, we will all be able to be "free at last" from the enslaving bonds of affirmative action.
Our hopes were dashed when President Lyndon Johnson decided to reinterpret Title VII of that Civil Rights Act. Though it specifically stated that none of its provisions should be interpreted as requiring "preferential treatment" for any individual or group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (though obliquely did suggest that some form of "affirmative action" should be encouraged), Johnson decided to codify affirmative action remedies by issuing Executive Order #11246, which made it clear that set-asides, quotas and preferential treatment based on race should be used in order to accomplish his vision of "The Great Society."
In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why it wasn’t patently obvious that Johnson’s order to institutionalize racial preference was just such an injustice, whatever the well-intended reason, is hard to understand. Perhaps it was the guilt many thoughtful Americans felt for those past injustices that made us accept it, believing that at some, undefined point in the future, these measures would no longer be necessary. The problem is, once a group enjoys privileges for any reason, they are not going to willingly give them up.
There are no doubt many who will label these views as racist, and will point out the ongoing racial problems that exist in this country. I submit that the reason there are still racial problems in this country is because we are required by law to practice racial discrimination. The fact is, the last two generations have grown up restrained by institutionalized racism. Those given preferential treatment based on race learned from affirmative action that they are recognized by government as "inferior", incapable of succeeding without the "leg up" the law provided. Those on the other end learned that the law created unfairness, that no matter how hard they tried, someone could pass them merely because of their "preferred" race.
As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion of this landmark case from Seattle and Louisville schools systems this week, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It doesn’t get any plainer than that. We can only hope that this common sense attitude will spread across every walk of life, not just in school systems, and that soon, we will all be able to be "free at last" from the enslaving bonds of affirmative action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
