Gray On Black And White

I would have missed the disturbing letter that appeared last week in the Washington Post by William H. Gray III, former Congressman and now CEO of the United Negro College Fund, but for the cogent letter today criticizing it.

Gray’s letter, though short, was long enough to contain several troubling assertions, but, apparently, not long enough to mention one issue whose absence is striking.

First, he refers to a point Michigan made in its defense in the undergraduate case — that a number of whites and Asians with lower grades and test scores than Jennifer Gratz were admitted. So? Is the argument that no one can be discriminated against because of race unless he or she is the only person discriminated against because of race? I would think the relevant question is whether Ms. Gratz would have been admitted if no other applicants had been granted 20 bonus points because of their race.

Next, he makes the familiar (to DISCRIMINATIONS readers) invidious, ubiquitous non-sequitur criticism of Ms. Gratz and friends for not challenging legacy and VIP preferences that “have had and continue to have a disparate impact on minority admissions to colleges and universities.” But that’s not surprising; everybody and her sister does that. What is surprising, coming from a former Congressman and current educational leader, is the further assertion that such disparate impact is unconstitutional.

To suggest that only policies that benefit minorities violate the Constitution, while policies that benefit whites do not, is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Gray should know better, as today’s letter writer points out.

Finally, underscoring his surprising lack of familiarity with the legal issues in the Michigan cases, Gray concludes by saying the object of the plaintiffs in those cases “is to stop the 25 years of affirmative action designed to remedy more than 300 years of discrimination.” Michigan, of course, has based its defense of racial preferences entirely on the need for “diversity.” It denies vigorously that its preferences are designed to remedy any discrimination (which it must, since the Supremes have already closed that door of justification).

And “diversity,” of course, is the dog that didn’t bark in Gray’s letter. If it were even partially as important as Michigan and other defenders of racial preferences claim, then most of the beneficiaries of the United Negro College Fund would be out of business.