In my last post I complained about “the mistaken belief that a blind faith in “merit” provides the only basis for criticizing preferences.”
Evidence of that misconception is almost as ubiquitous as the invidious non sequitur belief that if any discrimination is acceptable, all discrimination is acceptable. Another good example comes from a Martin Luther King day speech by Susan Gooden, dirctor of the Race and Social Policy Center at Virginia Tech.
“Exceptions” already occur, she pointed out, for children of influential alumni and exceptional athletes.
“The debate over preference is a valid one,” she said, “but why does it just focus on racial exceptions. Why not all exceptions?”
“Exceptions” obviously means exceptions to reliance on merit alone, as though a commitment to merit provides the only basis to condemn racial preferences. As readers of this blog know, it doesn’t.
I myself happen to like merit, but I think universities are perfectly free to compromise it as much as they’d like. They can discriminate on any basis they choose … except race and religion.
You’re 100% right and this shows how indefensible the preferences argument is. Typical to many of these disagreements the preferences advocates want to argue everything but treating people differently based on the color of their skin. There’s nothing unconstitutional about preferences per se except based on race, religion and I believe sex and national origin. If they want to argue against athletic scholarships fine, argue against those but they have nothing to do with racial preferences.