Over Our Quota of Bad Supreme Court Rulings

June 25, 2003

Our Constitution is, once again, under assault.   The recent Supreme Court ruling essentially upholding quotas if they’re done in a clandestine manner is not only an assault on the Constitution, it’s an insult.   It’s insulting to every member of a minority because it presupposes that everyone of color is disadvantaged.

Can you imagine if a white guy walked down the street and handed a dollar to every black person he saw?   If they asked what he was doing, he would respond, “You’re disadvantaged, aren’t you?   Here’s some money.”   Most would be offended.   This guy would be assuming that all black people are underprivileged.

An offensive stereotype?   You bet.   But what’s the difference between that and the Supreme Court upholding the use of race as a factor in college admissions?   The High Court looks down its nose at minorities.   It presupposes that every person who is not white is disadvantaged.   Conversely, it assumes that every white person has had a cakewalk in life.

Ironically, the only black on the court voted against the majority in the ruling.   Clarence Thomas understands that giving minorities advantages over others does not help them.   Such practices only cast a shadow over the achievements of minorities.   Those wondering if quotas may have played a part in that success look upon their success with suspicion.

Justice Thomas quoted Frederick Douglas, the former slave and famous abolitionist.   To paraphrase, Douglas basically said the best thing we, as a society, can do to help black people is to leave them alone.   Now, he didn’t mean to neglect black people but to simply allow them to lead their lives without government intervention, the dream of all Americans.

Picking at the wound of racism does nothing but infect the problem and make it worse.   As I’ve told my radio audience, you don’t right the wrongs of the past by wronging the people of the present.

The Supremes claimed that the need for diversity on our nation’s public university campuses justified the use of quotas.   I’ve searched the entire Constitution and I’ve found nothing in there about diversity.   It must be right there alongside that phantom amendment separating church and state.

This whole notion that college campuses must be diverse in order to educate is absurd.   I have nothing against diversity, mind you.   My kids are in public school partly because I want them exposed to the realities of life.   However, diversity should not be the primary goal of any institute of higher learning.   Education should be the main focus.   I want my kids learning about history and science and math in college.   If they happen to be sitting next to someone of another race or ethnic group, fine.   But it’s not essential to their education.   The last thing I want is for them not to be sitting there just because they happened to be the wrong color.  

If diversity is so important, why did people like Hillary “Rob ‘em” Clinton, touted as the smartest woman in the world by the left-wing, go to Wellesley, an all-female school?   Where’s the diversity there?

What’s most disturbing about this ruling is the total disregard by the Supreme Court of its primary function.   It does not exist to right the wrongs of society nor does it exist to further some politically correct agenda.   It exists only as the guardian of the U.S. Constitution.   Its rulings are to be filtered purely through what the Constitution says about a particular issue.   It is not their job to alter it.  

We can only hope that President Bush gets the chance to shape this court before his term expires.