According to the U.S. Supreme Court, I qualify for a boost into law school! So what if several other undergraduate applicants had higher GPAs and LSAT scores than mine. I could actually slide in above them with my special giveaway rewards points! So what if the night before taking the LSAT I decide to watch late night reruns of “Law and Order.” I am eligible for this extraordinary privilege simply because I am considered a member of an underrepresented minority. In their minds, I fit the bill like a part for a minstrel show or a house servant on Nantucket Island.
Thanks to the recent Grutter v. Bollinger decision, college campuses across the nation can continue to admit graduate students based on ethnicity. Liberals use words like “critical mass” to justify their thinly veiled quota system, but all in all there isn’t any more difference in these school admissions policies than there is in a white person exclaiming “I’ve just bought me a black friend …” All in the name of diversity.
According to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, artificially encouraging racial diversity on U.S. college campuses promotes “cross-racial understanding,” “helps to break down racial stereotypes,” and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” These benefits are “important and laudable” says O’Connor, because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
When in the history of the United States educational system were these ever considered necessary factors of the educational process? These are adults attending law school – to learn about the law, not second-graders learning to share cupcakes during show and tell! Good grief. (Now there’s an expression whites should explain for cross-racial understanding.)
What does it mean when the University of Michigan and the liberal elites on the Court explicitly state that black or Hispanic presence would be healthy for the white students on campus? It sounds awfully close to saying, “You all look alike, act alike and we sure love the way you sing ‘Mammy.’ Could you sing it to us one more time … we whites really need to understand your cultures. In fact, could you share with the class what you had for dinner last night … or better yet …?”
Think about it – the black community is about as diverse as whites, or any other community for that matter. According to the 2000 Census, while almost a quarter of blacks still live in poverty, 25 percent of black households also report income in excess of $75,000 annually. While almost 50 percent of blacks still live in the South, 40 percent of all blacks are securely nestled in middle-class suburban neighborhoods.
So how can any university assume that black or minority presence, meaning 35 percent of its student body, will all think alike? Simply because of similar skin hues or learned cultural patterns? How about those Cubans that have been in the States for one generation compared to a Mexican family who has owned a winery in Napa Valley for the last century?
Do they really think that a conservative black cowboy from Texas will have the same worldview as a liberal black congresswoman from Los Angeles? Perhaps they think Lennox Lewis, a black boxer from England, will see things in the exact same light as, say, Mike Tyson.
Would the University of Michigan law school appreciate a black presence that echoed the sentiments of Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington? I sincerely doubt it because the voices of these two men would not fit into their preconceived notion of black presence. No, the liberal elite want anything but diversity. That is precisely why they support racial profiling on university campuses. They want an artificially hegemonic mix of students that fits with their liberal agenda of uniformity and conformity.
Maybe while they are bean counting and stereotyping another question on the application should be: “Who do you like best? a) Frederick Douglass b) Booker T. Washington c) W.E.B. Dubois d) Marcus Garvey e) Al Sharpton.
Or perhaps liberalism just assumes that all blacks are descendants from Buckwheat – and believe that white college students should as well. From the sound of it black presence is synonymous to gang – yep, we all be from the hood of Cripps, Bloods and welfare.
If it were the gang-ridden welfare communities that liberals racially profile to “leave no child behind,” then what should be looked at, as acclaimed economist Dr. Walter E. Williams points out, “is not a free ticket into the most prestigious law schools, but rather alternative means of educating children in the primary and secondary grades.”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she hopes that in 25 short years there will no longer be the need for a “critical mass” of students of color, and race being a factor in college admissions. If preparing all children to become productive adults of integrity and high moral character ever again became the goal of higher learning, we should expedite her wishes – let’s immediately open up choice in education to those who due to limited resources are forced to send their children to academically broken and morally bankrupt government schools.