The most important aftershocks from Sen. Trent Lott’s now-infamous remarks have nothing to do with his political future. Whether Sen. Lott is merely wounded or becomes political road kill, the race vultures are circling the accident scene looking for ways to exploit the situation. Race is only a means here – the real end is power.
In two cases, for example, the Supreme Court will consider whether the racial preference admissions policies at the University of Michigan and its law school violate the Constitution or federal civil-rights laws.
Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, white Michigan residents, applied for admission to the university’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. The university rejects many “qualified” applicants, those likely to achieve passing grades. Both Jennifer and Patrick were first wait-listed, then rejected.
This selective university, however, does accept all qualified members of three groups – blacks, Hispanics and American Indians. While white Patrick had his GPA adjusted downward because his high school had a weak curriculum, these “underrepresented” minorities had theirs adjusted upward solely because of their race, no matter where they went to school. Not surprisingly, admission rates for applicants in these groups were more than three times higher than other comparably qualified applicants.
Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, applied for admission to the university’s School of Law. She too was first wait-listed, then rejected.
The law school also says it is committed to what it calls “diversity.” It singles out the same three groups, which it claims have not been represented in “meaningful numbers.” The school uses different standards for different racial groups to achieve a “critical mass” of students from these groups, or at least 10-12 percent of each class.
In the 1997 first-year class for which Barbara Grutter applied, 100 percent of those minorities with grades and test scores comparable with hers were admitted. This compares to just 19 percent of whites and less than 8 percent of Asians. The school admitted that she would likely have been admitted had she been black, Hispanic or American Indian. She was not because she is white.
The Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 1964 Civil Rights Act guarantees that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the grounds 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.” The University of Michigan receives such assistance and there’s no question that Jennifer, Patrick and Barbara were “subjected to discrimination” by the university or its law school “on the grounds of race, color or national origin.”
Unfortunately, however, race is no longer about morality or principle, but politics and power. No one, not even the university, claims that these very potent racial preference policies are necessary to address any past discrimination in admissions. The university is not looking backward here, trying to right a past wrong, but forward, trying to create a future utopia. It’s only – repeat, only – justification for its racial preference admissions policy is to achieve what it considers student body “diversity.”
But why is racial diversity – as opposed to any other kind – the only one addressed? Why are only certain racial or ethnic groups the beneficiaries of preferences? So long as no one is denied admission because of his race, why is one racial distribution better or worse than another? Yet the diversity bureaucrat tweaks and pokes, adjusts, slices and dices until the diversity porridge is not too hot and not too cold, but just right.
But that requires racial discrimination. Two best friends with the same birthdays, one white and one black, attend the same high school, take the same classes, and get the same grades. Their fathers work together and they live next door to each other. They apply to the University of Michigan at the same time and their applications are identical, save for their names and addresses. The white one is rejected and the black one admitted. Similarly situated people are treated differently because of their race. That’s immoral, and it’s illegal. And it’s happening right here in America.
The issue for the Supreme Court is when racial discrimination is still OK. For a time, the national consensus that racial discrimination is immoral produced constitutional amendments, civil-rights laws and equal opportunity. Then some discovered anew that there’s power in racism. While once it was wrong for an employer to hire and fire his way to a whiter work force, is it now right for a university admissions director to accept and reject his way to a blacker student body?
This could be an opportunity to teach the nation more about equality and individual merit. Now, however, the race merchants see the opportunity to expand their turf. Word is that the Bush administration is even considering backing off on this case for fear standing on principle will hurt the president’s re-election effort. It’s at that level of our moral and cultural soul that the impact of Sen. Lott’s thoughtless remarks may most be felt.
