George Will, on the diversity tinkerers:
Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court, in which Roberts said: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Anthony Kennedy, although agreeing that Seattle’s and Louisville’s practices are unconstitutional, chastised Roberts for an “all-too-unyielding” opposition to race-based programs. Yet when dissenting in the law school case, Kennedy said: “Preferment by race, when resorted to by the state, can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within it the potential to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality.”
Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion in that 2003 case, breezily asserted that in 25 years racial preferences would not be “necessary” to further diversity. But diversity preferences appeal to race-obsessed social engineers — a cohort particularly prevalent among today’s educators — precisely because the diversity rationale never expires. The diversity project is forever a work in progress.
Seattle’s “race-conscious” policies were devised by the sort of people who proclaimed on the school district’s website that “having a future time orientation” (planning ahead), “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology” and “defining one form of English as standard” constitute “cultural racism” and “institutional racism” and arise from “unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality.” Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, said the court should be deferential to such people when they shuffle pupils on the basis of race.
[my emphases] I wrote over the weekend about the role of individualism and assimilation in defending liberalism, so I won’t rehash the argument here.
But what I will do is pause to point out that, in a refreshing bit of candor that 5 members of SCOTUS dutifully ignored, the kernel assumptions that animate the social engineering initiatives of those who promote the “diversity” project are made perfectly clear: individualism should be subordinate to collectivism; temporality is a construct whose political effect is to sustain the status quo; “English” cannot be standardized without engaging in a cultural and institutional racism; and concepts like the “melting pot” or “colorblindness” actually encourage and further racism inasmuch as they appeal to ideas of individualism, temporality, and community standards defined by the entirety of the culture (by way of cultural give and take) rather than by the subgroups within the culture (as a way of problematizing the very idea of normative behavior, while also providing the basis for a resistance to “outside” critiques) — which, the argument goes, are anathema to creating a “diverse” population.
These are the very bedrock tenets of multiculturalist social theory — and their effect is to work against the concepts of individualism and individual liberty around which liberalism was founded. Making it all the more ironic that multiculturalism’s proponents presume to call themselves “liberal” and/or “progressive.
Continues will:
Why race? Although progressive people would never stoop to racial stereotyping, they evidently believe that any black or other minority child, however young, or from whatever social background, makes a predictable and distinctive — you might say stereotypical — contribution to “diversity.”
Breyer said that last week’s decision abandons “the promise of Brown.” Actually, that promise — a colorblind society — has been traduced by the “diversity” exception to the Equal Protection Clause. That exception allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning — a sort of human oregano — to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority’s educational experience more flavorful.
This repulsive practice merits Clarence Thomas’ warning in his opinion concurring with last week’s ruling: Beware of elites eager to constitutionalize “faddish social theories.” Often, they are only theories. As Roberts said, Seattle and Louisville offered “no evidence” that the diversity they have achieved (by what he has called the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race”) is necessary to achieve the “asserted” educational benefits.
Evidence is beside the point. The point for race-mongering diversity tinkerers is their professional and ideological stake in preventing America from achieving “a colorblind mentality.”
As I noted in my posts on the decision, what was so problematic about Kennedy’s concurrence is that it kept alive the notion that the government has a compelling interest in a decidedly anti-liberal concept — even when there is no evidence to support that assertion, and plenty to suggest that, if anything, the government should actively prevent such attempts at social engineering.
Luckily, though, the language of the Constitution — when it isn’t being strained like a John Edwards anecdote — makes such judicial activism unnecessary; and though the “liberals” on the Court and in the press (and Kennedy, in his latest take on “all-too-unyielding” restrictions on racial preferment) continue to invoke the spirit of Brown as having been violated by this decision, we can take some comfort in the fact that not everyone is committed to taking legal advice from specters and ghosts, or surrendering to the emotional appeal of a concept that, under scrutiny, reveals itself to be less about true diversity than about the appearance of diversity at the expense of what it claims to champion.
I’m guessing you are white.
Even worse, david, he’s a joooooooooooooo……..
Booga-booga.
I am cryin’ over heah.
Don’t tell me you’re not. WHO LET HIM IN HERE?
Feel free to contract “you are”
DaveDavid. We’re all friends here.Who crapped in the trolls’ Wheaties this morning?
What???? They are letting “non-whites” in here now? Geez, next thing you know there will be women allowed here. Oh, the HUMANITY….
:)
You can’t tell the politics of a white guy just by the color of his skin.
I’m guessing you are white.
And if he isn’t, he must be an uncle tom – b/c we all know “real” blacks are liberals.
david knows a “hater” when he reads one.
david —
What color are you? If you’re white and we differ on our readings of the case, that would suggest that “whites” can, individually, hold differing views. Which would mean that it is silly to assume that just because we’re both white, we be used as a homogenous type in the name of diversity.
And if you aren’t white, how can you presume to understand me? Because clearly your implication is that my whiteness prevents me from understanding the plight of non-whites that justify this kind of social engineering.
Back on topic:
Kennedy’s ambivalence seems to be a reluctance to completely sever himself from the diversity meme. Brown has been hijacked for many years now to promote something it doesn’t say; that being the cagey formula – Diversity + Forced Racial Offsets = Brown’s color blindness.
One of the conclusions I reached (and by the way, david/beagle, if you’re still reading and grinding your teeth: I’m Portuguese and, as such, still eligible for mionority set asides in the state of New Jersey,) is what passes for the leftward “mainstream” will never reach a point where they can say “OK, no more set asides/Affirmitive Action.” They will never allow themselves the purely selfless act of giving up one of their cherished policy trophies, regardless of the cost or the reality of it’s results. This is clearly echoed in John Edward’s call to end poverty, another pipe dream that justifies throwing more and more money at a problem that will exist, in some form, forever and ever, a goal never to be realized but a continued shining beacon of progressive caring/action.
The idea of providing a framework for success that doean’t include handouts or some system of preferential treatment causes Grand Mal seizures amongst many liberal/progressives.
But, then again, I may be a closet racist. Only david knows for sure…
Or, as we like to refer to him as the shuttlecock in the PW badmitton game. Your serve…
david–to the uninitiated–is one of the more hostile and poisonous trolls we get around here. He’s a real dick. Fire at will.
Actually, his appearance here is a good sign: the Progressives only break out the hostile trolls when they’re on the defensive. They must be so now.
Hmmm. Life not treatin’ ya right; huh, david?
Thank-you Protein Wisdom (and George Will). I just wrote a similar article critical of an editorial in the Monday LA Times. I take issue with their assumptions about the role of the Supreme Court and their criticism of the Court’s ruling last week on racial discrimination in school district diversity programs. While there has been a good deal of discussion over the conservative nature of the new Court and dire predictions about overturning the Brown case, there has not been much discussion on whether the Court’s decision is actually correct based on the case law. I believe it is and all the apocolypic warnings and bitching about Bush stacking the court is just the left not having anything else of substance to comment on the ruling about. Clear logic and obvious double standards are tough to counter act for even the most talented talking heads. You can find my my article, LA Times in ‘Confusion’ over Supreme Court school district racial diversity case at this url: http://blog.mccannta.com/mccannta/2007/07/la-times-in-con.html .
Thomas McCann – mccannta
BJ – I spent a fabulous week on the Jersey Shore last week, in Ocean City.
David,
I’m guessing you are a complete fuckwit.
Best regards.
I think David is a fudgepacker.
Jeff,
You migh consider upping your troll budget a tiny bit, these bargin basement trolls just aren’t as amusing as the ones you used to get.
I hear you. If a guy can’t even find himself some quality trolls, he’s clearly slipping.
Where is timmah when you need him?
I still miss PIATOR.
I wonder if Jeff G has asked his black friends about whether we live in a color blind society or not.
The idiocy that so freely flows from the fingers of the davis and Rics of the world is breathtaking.
Ric – I do not recall anyone stating that we are a colorblind society, though it should be a goal, as Dr. King pointed out. Will there continue to be individual racists? No doubt. Should the government be allowed to prefer certain races over another? Absolutely not.
When we as an entire society, start seeing ourselves as Americans first, rather than as African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, that will remove a significant obstacle.
Ric, among the responses is that a society that has programs of preference by color is not a color blind society.
[…] Goldstein on Will on SCOTUS on Seattle and race-based solutions to racism: (W)hat I will do is pause to point out that, in a refreshing bit of candor that 5 members of SCOTUS dutifully ignored, the kernel assumptions that animate the social engineering initiatives of those who promote the “diversity†project are made perfectly clear: individualism should be subordinate to collectivism; temporality is a construct whose political effect is to sustain the status quo; “English†cannot be standardized without engaging in a cultural and institutional racism; and concepts like the “melting pot†or “colorblindness†actually encourage and further racism inasmuch as they appeal to ideas of individualism, temporality, and community standards defined by the entirety of the culture (by way of cultural give and take) rather than by the subgroups within the culture (as a way of problematizing the very idea of normative behavior, while also providing the basis for a resistance to “outside†critiques)  which, the argument goes, are anathema to creating a “diverse†population. […]
Would y’all quit calling what these programs were, “diversity”? They weren’t. They were aimed at establishing and maintaining an exquisitely delicate racial balance within each school in the respective school districts.
You can make a fair argument that it is a compelling government interest to ensure that elite, public-sponsored institutions are open to qualified individuals from *all* backgrounds. (Trolls note: this means socio-economic diversity, not skin-deep skin color-based ‘diversity.’) Sheesh, these school districts are out to give moderate liberals* and Jeffersonians a bad name.
*Don’t laugh, I met a moderate liberal once. No, really, I did. He didn’t even look at the Plowshare Seven with envy. Hard to believe, I know, but it’s true.
David, Ric, for the last time, you can’t nuke wingnuts when your arsenal is empty!
“I wonder if Jeff G has asked his black friends about whether we live in a color blind society or not.”
I hate these little right… I mean left-wing games. If you’ve got a point, make it. Otherwise don’t bother.
Notice I changed my screen name. I will not be associated with Caric and his ilk, whether Jeff likes “ilk” or not.
We will never achieve a color-blind society as long as skin color is specifically and intentionally used to decide who goes, or may go, where. I and my friends and neighbors were reluctantly persuaded, long ago, that we weren’t living up to our own stated ideals — but what we agreed to was an attempt to make those ideals more real, not our turn in the barrel. And not even the most red-necked, broken-toothed, overalled good-ole-boy Klan member would have dreamed of asserting that the only way black kids could get good educations was by sitting next to a Magic White Child™.
The irony in that question is hilarious enough, but the fact that it was written by a PROFESSOR (By the way, did you know I’m a PROFESSOR!?!), and that it was written in complete earnestness is almost more hilarity than I can bear. Almost.
I’m not sure the professor quite follows. The idea is, 1) how do we best get to the point where society is truly colorblind (if, in fact, that is our stated ideal); and 2) what does the Constitution say on the matter.
To the first point, my answer has been that we demystify the concept of “race,” based, as it is, on social constructivism that collapses into essentialism under the weight of its own attempt to salvage itself as a deliminating category. To the second point — and here is where Kennedy’s concurrence breaks from the rest of the majority opinion — I’ve argued, as do 4 of the Justices, that the Constitution clearly calls for what amounts to a “colorblind” society, not by way of social engineering to reach that “ideal,” but by way of not allowing the government to show preference on the basis of race.
Justice Powell’s holding in Bakke muddied the waters, allowing race to be considered as one among a number of possibilities for admission to higher ed; this left the door open for “compelling interest” arguments, and in turn left the door open to the social engineering games played by proponents of “diversity” as it is currently understood.
But as those in Seattle who fought for the right to racially categorize show — and I highlight — their world view is based on illiberal concepts, from a resistance to individual freedom to a rejection of any kind of assimilationist program as a form of “cultural racism.”
Nowhere have I ever argued that we live in a colorblind society; in fact, I’ve argued precisely the opposite — and located the cause of that shortcoming (again, presuming the sought-after ideal is the one expressed by Dr King) the fact that we continue to promote “race” as a social project.
But to answer the professor’s specific question, my black friends would find it funny that I’ve chosen to ask them if we live in a colorblind society based on the fact that they are black.
But then, I run with a savvy crowd, and irony isn’t often lost on them.
You said the N-word.
No, the professor doesn’t follow. He’s a prime example of something I’ve been saying for a long time — the problem with modern Liberalism is that there aren’t any liberals in it; it’s just a team label. Nobody expects the Bengals to be furry and chase down antelope, or the Vikings to row boats to where they can pillage coastal villages — and nobody, least of all themselves, expects Liberals to express anything but utter hostility to liberal ideals.
Simple test, multiple-choice as is required nowadays. Select the one of the following two statements which is liberal:
A: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
B: “What you say is hateful, and I’ll see you punished for that.”
Professor Caric will fail that test, every time.
Yeah, it’s probably best that you spell that right out.
Nor is there anything modern about it. Medieval, at best.
Yeah, Jeff. But would you ask your Asian/Pacific Islander friends if we live in a colorblind society? What about your non-white Latino friends? Your Naive American/Alaskan Aleut friends? Bi-racial firends? Tri-racial, pre-op transgender, differently-abled, non-hearing, non-Christian, anti-Zionist friends?
Notwithstanding the naivity of your Alaskan Aleut friends, Native American. That’s what I get for trying to be PC.
You can’t spell native without naive. Not that it matters, or means anything.
Just thought I’d throw it out there.
Like a handful of maize.
To appease some eagle or owl god.
Jeff – The Aletian Eagle God dance involves brass poles, tribal maidens, and much smuggled hooch. Good times.
Anybody know how the Fightin’ Whities did last year?
#
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/5 @ 4:35 pm #
I wonder if Jeff G has asked his black friends about whether we live in a color blind society or not.
Hey! Lets ask Thomas Sowell! I bet he has an answer. He’s a real professor and he’s really black.
help
N-Word ‘Burial’ Highlights Convention