Back in the Bakke days, we called that "reverse discrimination". And reverse discrimination is still discrimination, and it's usually wrong.
"The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males,'' says a Justice Department letter sent to the university last week and obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.I'm going to assume that "non-preferred minorities" means Asian, because we all know that Asians are minorities until education/school performance is concerned, and then they're whiter than the whitest white man.
I must admit that I'm somewhat interested in the "why" of this case? Why SIU? and why now? Are there really no programs at more attention-grabbing schools that are doing the same thing? What exactly prompted this suit? Is this the only such suit, or are there more on the way for other schools?
I long for the day when race-based preferences are gone in all public dealings. The Civil Rights Act was passed before I was born, yet Justice O'Connor believes it'll be another 25 years before we can do away with affirmative action programs that cannot be justified by the words of that very act. I'll be retired by then. Imagine, a law that takes a lifetime before it's enforced.
LaShawn Barber (people who read conservative blogs should already know about her) has a few comments about such race-based preferences, quoting Title VI of the Civil Rights Act:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance....
I have to ask: how can that be misunderstood? And how does it justify the Supreme Court decision in the Grutter case (University of Michigan)? Barber continues with her own words:
Skin color-based scholarship programs in public universities can’t be defended legally or morally. If blacks advocate skin color preferences because they’re afraid of getting left behind socially, educationally, and economically, they need to improve performance and generate opportunities for themselves rather than using public funds to “level the playing field,” which is nothing more than a moronic baseball analogy that didn’t make sense 40 years ago and makes less sense now.I think she gets it.
Interestingly enough, it's well known now that women outnumber men at American universities. And black women outnumber black men by 2:1. I wonder how it would go over if universities started having outreach programs and scholarships just for men. You think skin color is identifying, sex is even more clearly so! Bring in the men! I should have a scholarship waiting for me somewhere by virtue of my having a penis. Makes about as much sense as having a scholarship waiting for me somewhere by virtue of having more pigmented skin or a specific type of last name.
Outreach is one thing. Recruiting is another. "Celebrating diversity" is another. But when we're talking about schools that receive federal dollars, they should, at a minimum, be required to follow federal law. These types of scholarships have to go. These types of preferences have to go. And it should take 25 more days to make it happen, not O'Connor's 25 years.
I'll close with more of Barber's words:
Most “mainstream” blacks don’t see anything wrong with skin color distinctions in public hiring and admissions as long as blacks are the ones receiving the benefits of discrimination. It’s called human nature. Back in the day when government skin color distinctions harmed blacks, they called it what it was: repugnant.