Reader Fred Ray sends word of an article in the Los Angeles Times by David Savage that interprets the sheer number of briefs filed in support of the University of Michigan’s race preferences as virtual proof of a national consensus on the matter. The article did not mention national poll results that suggest something different. (Link may require registration)
I find the suggestion that the Supreme Court should tailor its conclusions to the weight of the briefs on each side rather than to the weight of the arguments contained in them somewhat offensive, but I do think the Republican Party and its allies have been, as usual, remiss. They’ve largely abandoned the argument to elite institutions in the universities, the press, unions, etc. A hundred or so Democratic congressmen signed briefs in support of Michigan. Where were the Republicans? Hiding, as usual.
Despite the offensiveness of its argument (it’s now no longer worth comment that a news article has an argument), there were some interesting and even important admissions in the article. Summarizing the import of the large stack of briefs, Savage stated that
the need for affirmative action is different than it was in the past. A quarter-century ago, when the court took up Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke — in which a white applicant to UC Davis’ medical school claimed he was rejected only because a specific number of places were reserved for minorities — affirmative action was described as a temporary remedy for past discrimination.
By contrast, the new briefs look to America today and in the future. They say racial diversity is a positive aspect of American life, whether in the military or at the nation’s elite colleges.
Thus, the original supporters of affirmative action, and later of race preferences, argued that such measures were extreme, and, like censorship in wartime, would be merely temporary exceptions to the still valid principle of neutral non-discrimination. By contrast, todays preferentialists frankly admit that the old principle has been discarded — the war has become perpetual — and that preferences should be legitimized as a permanent fixture of American life.
In addition, Savage quotes Michigan lawyers saying
it is “fantasy” to believe that true racial diversity can be achieved without considering race in the admissions process.
“There are no race-neutral alternatives at this time,” Michigan’s lawyers told the court. “Overruling Bakke would force most of this Nation’s finest institutions to choose between dramatic resegregation and completely abandoning the demanding standards that have made American higher education the envy of the world.”
This admission strikes me as even more significant than the acknowledged abandonment of the non-discrimination principle. It recognizes that there are indeed race-neutral means of achieving diversity — despite their heated denials to the contrary — but that those means might require lowering their “demanding standards,” i.e., high grades and test scores. Rather than do that, they want to be allowed to continue using double or triple standards — high standards for whites and Asians, lower standards for blacks, (some) Hispanics, and Native Americans. In other words, they are saying that continuing to evaluate whites and Asians by traditional meritocratic means is so important (Lani Guinier, discussed in the immediately preceding post, to the contrary notwithstanding) that they should be allowed to have different, lower standards for preferred minorities.
Thus, I repeat what I said in my last post, and elsewhere: that the issue here is double/triple standards, for now even Michigan’s lawyers admit they could achieve diversity by race-neutral means, lowering their “demanding standards.”
The question thus becomes not whether diversity is compelling enough to justify racial discrimination, but whether maintaining traditional meritocratic standards for whites and Asians is compelling enough to justify racial preferences, i.e., lower standards, for others.
i think that you should show pictures of these articles