First, so to be clear:
the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
The difference between racism and bigotry.
Now, to this oopion:
The civil rights lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan’s affirmative action ban repeated Sunday that the high court’s decision was “racist.”
“This is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of state’s rights,” civil rights attorney Shanta Driver told “Fox News Sunday.” “This decision cannot stand.”
This is truly remarkable. A decision that makes it illegal to give preferential treatment to an individual based on race is called racist. Forget the lack of understanding of the word – the lack of understanding of where we wanna get to is remarkable.
The future we aspire to is one where we judge an individual on merit of character, on basis of achievement – an equal footing not based on race.
An argument can be made for reparations, to be sure. But that is an argument based on past wrongs. Affirmative Action isn’t about that – Affirmative Action is about preferential treatment based on race.
The best way to test for appropriateness? Ask yourself, if it’s okay to admit a student with lower scores because they are black – is it okay to admit a student with lower scores because they are white?