ShareThis Page
Affirmative action: It is utterly wrong |

Affirmative action: It is utterly wrong

| Monday, April 7, 2003 12:00 a.m

After the big buildup, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the University of Michigan affirmative action case. It is clear that the crypto-racists have dug their claws into the Constitution with no compunction about having it ripped to shreds.

That racial preferences are unconstitutional is of no moment if the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are denied to whites.

As such, the vast underclass of the educationally inferior may be slowly introduced to civilization if a few of their number are wedged into the academy. The ripple effects, it is argued, will be wonderful.

That is utterly wrong.

Reverse discrimination is no less loathsome because it is defended by the state’s unconstitutional paternalism. Quotas of seats in institutions of higher education are not remedies for decades of political — that is, legislative — betrayal. For the millions of students injured by this betrayal — white, black Asian and Hispanic — college is too late.

Kirk O. Kolbo, arguing before the court last week against the Michigan preferences, put his finger squarely on the point when he was asked if the state should be concerned by too few minorities in higher education.

“It certainly would justify perhaps broad social and political concerns.”


There are political and social choices to be made — a preference for reformation of the educational system with school choice. And a preference for the job-producing, wealth-accumulating virtues of the free market.

People can find their way.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.