Defending Racism at All Costs

By Lloyd the Idiot

The University of Texas will pay Washington lawyers close to $1 million to defend the admissions preference it gives to white students in a case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh, did I say a preference for white students?  Silly me.  That clearly would be illegal, wouldn’t it?

But what’s the difference really?  These preferences are nothing more than state-sanctioned racism, every bit as repugnant to the Constitution as segregated schools, beaches and buses. Just like Brown v. Board of Education overturned a century of  “separate but equal,” it is time to end “affirmative action” programs that do nothing more than perpetuate racial and ethnic divisions in this country.

More about the case here.  Should be an interesting one, particularly with Justice Kagan recusing herself.

 

 


Comments

  • David Dickinson says:

    As a white man, I’m not allowed to respond to this post.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Oh, did I say a preference for white students? Silly me. That clearly would be illegal, wouldn’t it?”

    Well, not since the 60s. Wink. Wink.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Yep, I’m also a Caucasian guy. No comment.

  • Leej says:

    I am half Lithuanian ;-)

    So my life really sucks.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I think the real revelation here is that DD and Nate are white.

    I would never have guessed.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Why did Kagan recuse?

  • Kagan’s bowing out likely because she was solicitor general when the administration participated in the lower court proceedings on this case.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Kagan’s bowing out likely because she was solicitor general when the administration participated in the lower court proceedings on this case.”

    And yet, she did not recuse herself on Obamacare, even though she played a direct role in the crafting of that law when she was Solicitor General.

    Very interesting indeed.

  • RichmondDem says:

    “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”–Martin Luther King

    @Nate

    When is Clarence Thomas going to recuse himself from the healthcare case since his wife is a Tea Party activist being paid to campaign against it?

  • Concerned Human Being says:

    Why is it unreasonable for the system to have in place a policy that seeks to equalize a playing field that has been one sided for years?

  • RichmondDem says:

    That said I’m with Jim Webb on the point that it should be for blacks ONLY, it was a response to the legacy of slavery Jim Crow, It has nothing to do with non-black women or other minorities.

  • “The ‘right thing’ is easily explained. Rationalizing a wrong takes a lot more effort.”

    - Lloyd the Idiot

    “Why is it unreasonable for the system to have in place a policy that seeks to equalize a playing field that has been one sided for years?”

    Agree 100%. Racial preferences in college admissions have been around for more than 40 years. Time to level the playing field.

    Richmond Dem, I find your remark about preferences for blacks as telling as it is insulting. Countless people and peoples have found themselves the victims of bigotry. Irish, Chinese, Hispanics, and Vietnamese, as just a few examples. Yet you single out blacks for “special treatment.” Is it because you think blacks are uniquely incapable of competing with other groups?

  • RichmondDem says:

    No other group in this country was owned as chattel property for about 250 years then systemecially (not just in individual actions, but with the full backing and power of state governments, including this one) discrimanted against and disenfranchised for another 100 on top of that. This is very different from mere bigotry. The institutional effects of that don’t go away overnight.

    There are people who recognize this obvious fact and supported affirmative action, like Martin Luther King, and then there are those who don’t or won’t and oppose affirmativeit action, like David Duke.

    I know which side I’m on.

  • American Indians? No preference for them?

  • RichmondDem says:

    There are tons of federal programs specially set up for Native Americans. There’s an entire federal beaurau, in fact.

  • But you said specfically that preferences should be for blacks only. Are you saying there should be no college preference programs for American Indians?

  • RichmondDem says:

    Yes , there should be for them too. Not living in a western state, it honestly slipped my mind.

  • Why? Given what you said, the only justification for any preference was the years of Jim Crow laws. Also, what about the Coolies?

    The list goes on and on. And the longer the list, the weaker your argument becomes. And the more clearly MLK is proven wrong.

  • RichmondDem says:

    Yes, in that specific instance it was slavery and Jim Crow. But generally, preferences should only be given if the government systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against (or in the case of slavery, actually denied their very humanity) through the power of law. There are two cases where this happened, and two only–slavery and jim crow and the various offenses carried out against the Indians by the federal government. I suppose you could argue Japanese Internment, too, but that was MUCH more limited in scope, and restitution was made to the persons affected in any event.

  • Oh, and if we’re throwing around quotes, how about this one:

    “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.”

  • Eh, I was going to type out a long post, but I’m rather tired of the subject. It isn’t that both sides don’t have a point, just that each side starts the discussion from a different place, elevating their point above all others. It’s hard to imagine that either side suddenly has a revelation and changes, since all we do is talk past each other.

  • Elder Berry says:

    I’m with you Gretchen.

  • TCJohnson says:

    “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.”

    Which would be wonderful but studies show that the lighter a black man’s skin the more likely he is to get a higher salary and the darker his skin the less likely he can find work. Could it be we are still judging people in the country and got a very long way to go? When things balance out I would be more for dropping affirmative action.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “When is Clarence Thomas going to recuse himself from the healthcare case since his wife is a Tea Party activist being paid to campaign against it?”

    There’s a suttle difference between being directly involved with legislation and having your wife being involved indirectly by opposing it.

    I know that Rep. Weiner was tring to make an issue of trying to see Thomas recuse himself. Of course, that was BEFORE the whole whathaveyous that ultimately caused him to resign from Congress.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    *subtle difference.

  • BlackOut says:

    I wouldn’t call a bunch of white guys experts on racism.

    Here”s some real life from last night:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/fans-unleash-racial-garbage-at-joel-ward/2012/04/26/gIQA19lBiT_blog.html

  • TCJohnson says:

    I used to think racism was getting better in this country but it’s not. Seems to be going backward.

    Or maybe just becoming more blatant.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    C’mon!! It OBVIOUSLY is all in good fun!! (please read with all the dripping sarcasm you can muster).

  • Elder Berry says:

    TCJ, a whole lot of ugliness has been unleashed and set free by the calculated political machinations of Karl Rove and his minions and disciples, who don’t care what the collateral damage is so long as they achieve the election results they aim for.

    People used to be ashamed of some of the things they feel free to say now. Or should I say, say now, again.

  • If you want an example of the worst kind of racist, look no further than the Hon. Marion Barry. Both a bigot and an imbecile.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/marion-barry-says-dirty-asian-shops-comment-was-not-racial/

  • BlackOut says:

    “worst kind” Lloyd? Certainly bad, but he isn’t calling for a lynching like some of the Joel Ward comments.

    All of it is bad. BTW, I consider all bigots to be imbeciles.

  • In fact, BO, I would still describe Barry has the worst. Not only is he an imbecile and a bigot, he is an elected official, Purportedly representing all those races he disparages.

  • ed myers says:

    The easy solution is to use socio-economic factors instead of race when deciding who gets special treatment. For those who say that certain ethnic groups have been disadvantaged by institutional discrimination, the proof of harm will be that those INDIVIDUALS have lower income. Lower income clearly disadvantages children and thus they can not compete with children from families with more resources for tutors and enrichment courses, etc. You end up still giving a preference to Blacks and Hispanics (because poverty is higher in the same subgroups that are complaining about discrimination) but you don’t perpetuate racism by locking in a racial system that in a few more generations will fade completely. This approach would also address the discrimination against non-racial subgroups such as ugly, fat, rural, certain religions, speech patterns, etc.

    The end to racism (by color) is evident in the rapid rise in bi-racial children. When you can’t quickly identify someone’s subgroup by visual features you can’t imediately apply a sterotype.

  • Ed, in fact, Texas has something along the lines of what you are suggesting. It admits the top 10% from every high school class to the University of Texas. That way, the kids in the poor, inner city schools have a decent chance at a good college education. Apparently, however, that just wasn’t good enough for some liberals.

Leave Comment