to Use Race as the Only Factor
Lisa De Pasquale
2002


This week the Supreme Courts majority ignored the Constitution and ruled
on behalf of diversity. On the University of Michigan Law Schools
practice of using race as an admissions factor Justice Sandra Day
OConnor, the perpetual swing vote, wrote that it provides a meaningful
individualized review of applicants. Combined with the vote against UMs
undergraduate admissions point system, the Supreme Court has effectively
made it possible for race to decide 100% of an applicants acceptance (or
rejection).

The now infamous UM point system allowed many factors to be
considered, among them grades, SAT score, athletic ability, legacy and a
well-written essay. Based on the 150 points allotted, a preferred
minority would receive 20 of the 150 points needed for admission -- about
13% of his or her total points. Though the point system was also wrong in
its assessment of a qualifying student, at least it statistically allowed
students to excel in other areas and still have a fighting chance. Now
more financial resources will go to a universitys band of bean counters
who individually assess the race box.

Even more baffling than the five members of the Supreme
Courts disregard for the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause is
their inference that their vote was in conflict with the Constitution. In
justifying their decision, the Court said that it hoped their noble nod to
diversity would not be needed in another 25 years. Why? Do they think
there is something wrong with the decision they just made? Do they hope a
contrary vote will come up in 25 years? If using race as a factor in
admissions is so noble, why not keep it in practice forever?

Perhaps the most bothersome aspect of the Courts decision is
that affirmative action practices stigmatize minorities, regardless of
whether they relied on them for advancement. Will a black womans
abilities be questioned when a potential employer finds out she went to
the University of Michigan? Will a successful black man be seen as a hard
worker or just a benefactor of institutionalized diversity? In the
dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, I believe blacks can achieve in
every avenue of American life without the meddling of university
administrators.

Obviously, liberals dont think so. In a recent column,
Maureen Dowd wrote, It makes [Justice Thomas] crazy that people think he
is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his
race. She goes on to call him a self-pitying victim despite his
racial blessings. She also attributes his move from being a Democrat to
a conservative while in college as a strategic move based on his political
commodity. That same day, National Organization for Women President Kim
Gandy compared George W. Bushs views on affirmative action to George
Wallace blocking the University of Alabamas entrance. She also praised
the decision as a necessary practice to ensuring access to higher
education for women and people of color. These liberal race baiters are
so enthralled with their own self-righteousness they dont see how
blatantly racist they really are. They want Americans to believe, as
liberals apparently do, that minorities couldnt succeed without
affirmative action policies.

In September of 2002, The Washington Times reported on the
Luce Policy Institutes new Headquarters Women Hall of Fame. Many
women, including Justice Sandra Day OConnor, appointed by President
Reagan and the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, were featured in
the Hall of Fame. As of June 23, 2003, Justice O Connor has been removed
from the Luce Policy Institutes Hall of Fame. Her disregard for the
Constitution can no longer be ignored.