In a recent decision (Grutter v. Bollinger), The Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of 5 to 4, upheld the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as a consideration for admission.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is often considered the swing vote on Court, voted in favor of affirmative action.
- "The equal protection clause doesn't prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions,"....."We take the law school at its word that it would 'like nothing better than to find a race neutral admissions formula' and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable."
By what criteria is it to be decided on the "Racial Classification" of an individual? Shall one use the 1/16th or less rule in defining racial admixture...or the "no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian" in establishing ones "whitness" (Va. Code 1924, section 5099(a)(5)), or one "blackness" as any admixture of black blood that made a person black (Moreaau v. Grandich, 114 Miss, 560, 75 So. 434 (1917). Such foolishness!!!
Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, voted against the use of "affirmative action". He stated in his dissent:
- "I believe that the law school's current use of race violates the equal protection clause and that the constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months. The constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favoured races or are based on illegitimate motives but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all."
In was in response to the civil rights movement, that President John F. Kennedy created a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity in 1961 and issued Executive Order 10925, which used the term "affirmative action" to refer to measures designed to achieve non-discrimination; and, in 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure equality of employment opportunity without regard to race, religion and national origin. "Affirmation Action" has come to mean, in fact, the use of race as a consideration, not only in employment, but in awarding government contracts and admission to Colleges/Universities.
Justice O'Connor stated in her opinion:
While objective measures of aptitude indicate significant differences among racial groups, these racial classifications are artificial and spurious. What matters are individual differences: the basis of all Natural Law. Civil Law based on racial classifications, as reflected in Affirmative Action Policies, are contrary to Natural Law. They undermine the very nature of our competitive system and, as such, are invidious and prevent the development of excellence.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865; the 14th on July 9, 1868, yet, approximately 140 years later the Supreme Court of the United States uses the law to favor racial minorities which, in the words of Justice Thomas "harm the favoured races"....and "demeans us all."
In 1922 the United States Supreme Court arbitrarily defined the meaning of the word "Caucasian Race"
...But what is the meaning of "white person" ? The Court continues:
- "In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not employ the word 'Caucasian,' but the words 'white persons,' and these are words of common speech and not of scientific origin."
It was the "popular" notion of what constitutes a "white person" that was used to deny US Citizenship to a Hindu.
- "But in this country, during the last half century especially, the word by common usage has acquired a popular meaning, not clearly defined to be sure, but sufficiently so to enable us to say that its popular as distinguished from its scientific application is of appreciably narrower scope. It is in the popular sense of the word, therefore, that we employ is as an aid to the construction of the statute, for it would be obviously illogical to convert words of common speech used in a statute into words of scientific terminology when neither the latter nor the science for whose purposes they were coined was within the contemplation of the framers of the statute or of the people for whom it was framed. The words of the statute are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man from whose vocabulary they were taken.
The question for determination [261 U.S. 204, 210] is not, therefore, whether by the speculative processes of ethnological reasoning we may present a probability to the scientific mind that they have the same origin, but whether we can satisfy the common understanding that they are now the same or sufficiently the same to justify the interpreters of a statute-written in the words of common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men-in classifying them together in the statutory category as white persons....
- When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to 'any alien
being a free white person' it was these immigrants-bone of their bone and flesh
of their flesh-and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind."
In other words, Congress defined "white person", with the blessing of the United States Supreme Court, as anyone that looks like them!!!!
We are but ONE "Racially" heterogenous Human population....so that....any schematic notion of race in Human populations becomes arbitrary; used solely for the expression of hate, social and cultural exculsivity, and invidious discrimination.
"Affirmative Action" is a sop to racial minorities that undermines the very nature of our competitive system; and will continue so long as the Congress and the Supreme Court considers it's use politically expedient.