Oh what a tangled web we weave, by allowing a high court to define what is equal. You remember Amendment XIV
to that ‘living’ document that expands and contracts as the uppermost jurists sees fit:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Awe, equal protection - what a glorious concept! But exactly what does equal mean in the world of autarchic
judiciary? If you didn’t know before, you have your answer now. One almost thinks that Justice Lewis F. Powell still
lives: “A diverse college campus population benefits all students and society at large, and colleges may pick their students based in part on
race.” Affirmative action meets Bakke at an Omega Psi Phi fraternity social, accompanied with Sandra Day O'Connor as his date . . . Kind of reminiscent of the tune -
all we need is love.
Folks just because the Hatfield-McCoy truce has been signed, it doesn’t mean they are kin. So too, the notion that diversity is beneficial doesn’t
institute benefits. The Supreme Court repudiated, in the recent decision regarding the undergraduate admission system at Michigan
University, that a fixed and automatic assignment of points based upon race is arbitrary. However, it left the door wide open
to sanction college administrators to devise fresh methods to set their quotes of social blame. Discrimination is now legal,
if you are one in the entourage that believes the Supreme Court is the final voice of the law.
Well, let’s confess the wisdom of this bench, even if it is warped by defective reasoning. The assumption
that diversity is a compelling interest, desirable and sacred, is suicidal for any society. It is comical to hear halfwits
argue that a civil war was fought to realize that all people are equal. Tribes are bloodlines that have particular social
and genetic distinctions. Diversity is defined as the fact or quality of being different. Advocates of affirmative action,
often are bands of ethnic groups that endure lives of envy. Caucasian sympathizers for special treatment for any aspiring
minority, have little self-respect for their own kind and a doom wish to become hostage to extortion and blackmail. When a
race resigned themselves to inherent and cultural inadequacies, they often supplicate for relief from the boss. However, when
they act like responsible adults and compete within the marketplace of life, they earn their way to mutual respect.
Now that the Supreme Court acknowledges that discrimination against the dominate European centric culture
is not only proper, but advantageous; those descendants should be prepared to become the whipping boy for the shameless guilt
in a society of desolation. Even if you are not a fan of Martin Luther King, would his colorless dream resemble a Jessie Jackson
rainbow coalition? But why yearn for social justice, that first woman of the top court says approved differences deserve dissimilar
consideration. What a noble precedent! Some are more equal than others. Thank the Lord that the concept of “equal protection
of the laws” has been struck down from that revolting due process of law amendment. Finally, we can all be honest -
tell it like it is - and accept our plight in life.
Not all citizen are equal in this multicultural paradise.
Therefore, it is all about raw power. The game has become - who gets to make the rules so that, the less privileged,
are required and compelled to obey. As in the arena of foreign policy, blowback has a domestic component. Discrimination
in reverse gear is certainly not righteous retribution. Government can impose their volition, but it can never legislate brotherly
love. Courts can pronounce sentences, but can never adjudicate deserved esteem. Any society that is composed of hostile factions
will always be at war with itself. The basic reality of political existence is that different peoples have contrasting interests
and aspirations. One shape does not fit all. No formula instills harmony, when the policy is intrinsically flawed. The principles
of social justice demand equal treatment.
Isn’t that the proper social goal? Being different is the essence of diversity. Rewarding benefits based
upon skin color is immoral. But if the dam of honesty has its spillways unlocked and the overflow of candor rushes forth,
why not manage the flow before the flood destroys everyone’s community? The primary admission that many refuse to face
up or confront is that most groups want to interact primarily among themselves. Assigning an educational degree does little
to ensure social compatibility. Trading preferences will never guarantee unanimity. Isn’t the entire point about the
purpose for respectful race relations, to allow the other guys to be themselves? Guess the maximal female judge doesn’t
accept that goal. O'Connor acts like a white version of that infamous N word, when she upholds the favoritism of affirmative
Racial preferences deserve to be directed within separate societies. This melting pot is a vile Irish ‘Sandra
Day’ Stew, that defiles all who ingest its poison. If the new rules are clear that it’s now
legal to recompense inferior performance based upon race, then it is time to wage the war for dominate supremacy. The repercussions
for running away from this struggle is subservience. If you are so consumed with the equality of others, over your own; you
will surely not miss when your parity is extinct.
Separate may not be equal, but forced integration is frightfully destructive. Add to this equation, the component
of automatic preferences, and you get cancerous quotas. Hardly a recipe for sharing high tea and splitting crumpets. When
will this society wake up and admit that the grand experiment has failed? Those minorities who enjoy elevated standards of
living, earn their way. Explicit altruism, never breeds self reliance, nor does it engender respect from guardian angels.
Each ethnic group secured their rise in position through hard work, discipline and talent.
When the Supreme’s recorded “I’m going make you love me”, the lyrics and melody were
not the product of a bleeding heart admissions board. If you really want to reach the relationship “Someday We’ll
Be Together”, affirmative action must be seen as an insidious insult to every person who values their own dignity. Until
this diseased culture repudiates forced and contrived equality, no one will achieve their full potential. The hypocrisy of
O'Connor won’t prevent the ‘Love Child’ of all the Diana Ross wanna-a-bees. Only personal effort and responsibility
offers lasting hope. Until the day that most Americans accept reality, the rest of us who understand human nature, will reserve
our right to discriminate against a governmental system that betrays our eternal principles.
SARTRE - June 25, 2003