Discriminations

Reading this sadly predictable editorial in the Kansas City Star, I can’t help but wonder: is there some secret school (or maybe even re-education/indoctrination center) that editorial writers at liberal mainstream papers must attend in order to learn the doublespeak that pervades this trashing of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative.

Consider, if you have a strong constitution, the following examples:

Supporters of the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution say it would simply ensure fairness. But it would torpedo state-supported affirmative action programs in hiring, contracting and education.

Have the editors considered that their “But” is not substantial enough to carry the weight assigned to it here? That is, the people proposing and supporting MoCRI believe that “state-supported affirmative programs” that involve preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, or sex are themselves inherently unfair. Thus there is no contradiction between their principled argument and the MoCRI proposal. No “Buts” necessary. The editors, in short, should make an argument or butt out.

Another example:

In their lawsuit, [supporters of MoCRI] want [Democratic Secretary of State] Carnahan to use ballot language they originally proposed. That language, however, is deceptive. It steals the words of the 1960s civil rights movement and turns them upside down.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination based on race. The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative would ban discrimination based on race. Where, exactly, is the theft? What, exactly, does the MoCRI turn upside down? The only thing upside down I can see here is the understanding of civil rights by editors at the Kansas City Star.

And another:

Supporters of the initiative point to similar measures that were approved in California and Michigan. Yet they are careful to hide the harm those initiatives have done to African-American and Hispanic communities.

Consider: Since California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, the number of black and Hispanic students annually enrolled in the University of California-Berkeley’s law school has never reached the levels it attained under affirmative action programs.

What harm is that? The only harm mentioned is the decline of black and Hispanic law students at Berkeley since the passage of Proposition 209. That decline may well be unfortunate, but by revealing the number of students who would not have been admitted without racial preference it is also a measure how much racial discrimination Proposition 209 eliminated.

The agit-prop editors of the Kansas City Star are certainly entitled to their opinion that “Missourians and the rest of the country are going to need [racial preference programs] for years to come,” but they misuse their position when they cast baseless and even demonstrably silly accusations against the sponsors and supporters of a measure that would require the state of Missouri to treat its citizens without regard to their race, sex, or ethnicity.