Given the enormity of the loophole created by Grutter it is difficult to remember that it is a loophole. Earlier, the Supremes had banned racial preferences for the purposes of correcting racial imbalance, even racial imbalances caused by earlier generations of discrimination, or to provide compensation for past discrimination (except to individuals who could prove that they themselsves were actual victims). Grutter, at least in theory, did not reverse these prior rulings, but it did allow a “diversity” exception for institutions of higher learning.
One of the reasons that it is difficult to remember that racial preferences are the exception rather than the rule is that “diversity” is regularly described and defended as a limitless justification for preferences, including preferences for purposes that have clearly been banned.
The Texas A&M University system, for example, has just decided to consider the race of applicants to its Health Science Center. By way of explanation and justification, Nancy W. Dickey, the center’s president, stated that “We know that there are health disparities between minorities and nonminorities, and diversity will help us reduce those disparities.”
She did not say exactly how “diversity” will help reduce health disparities. The goal of Erle Nye, vice chairman of the board, was not so extravagant. “We need bigger numbers,” he said.
State rep. Garnet Coleman (D, Houston) also defended the new diversity policy as a simple correction for racial disadvantage. “This is an acknowledgment that we don’t live in a meritocracy and that race can be a detriment,” he said.
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine has also just launched a new diversity program, the Vivien Thomas Fund to Increase Diversity, and it too was defended in terms that have nothing to do with diversity as traditionally defined (Thomas was a black medical pioneer at Hopkins.)
According to Edward D. Miller, dean of the Hopkins medical school, “We can best honor Vivien Thomas by removing for others the economic and racial barriers that often stood in his way.” “Diversity,” in other words, here is equated with simple removal of racial barriers, which is the same thing an anti-discrimination policy would do.
An “affirmative action” heart/brain surgeon. Interesting concept.
Could this sort of concept have been any factor in the above post about the (misguided jerk) man who did not want any black medical personal to assist or provide care for his wife and child?
If you ever get a chance to read about Vivien Thomas or see any of the shows about his life it is well worth your time. He had more strength of character than I ever would and the way he was treated is an embarrassment to our nation. For today’s NAACP leaders (referenced in later post) to suggest that things have not changed since the 50’s is absurd when you look at the life of Vivien Thomas.