The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

24 June 2003

Affirming the action

Rust at Conservatives Suck has some thoughts on the Supreme Court's affirmative-action rulings, based on his days at a small Midwestern college:

An important part of learning how to think is to be able to interpret a wide range opinions, digest them, compare them to each other, and then make a decision as to which one you agree with (or mostly agree with). Now, certainly, there was still a wide variety of opinions despite the lack of ethnic or racial diversity in the student body, as I had the pleasure of going to college with students from all over the nation. I had a good friend from Idaho, a place where I was previously unaware any humans existed. Since I grew up in Boston, people were dumbfounded with my strange culture and strangah accent. However, coming from the same socio-economic-religious background, these students (I did not come from a wealthy background) all had pretty similar views on politics, culture, economics, and philosophy. The lack of diversity of students led to the lack of diversity of ideas.

Emphasis in the original. This seems plausible enough, I think, though one possible subtext here — you don't get real diversity without variations in skin color — would be pretty close to indefensible.

He's right on this point, though:

Disgruntled whites may feel this will cause them to miss the cut at their favorite university. But if being educated by a homogeneous crowd is what they want, they are selling themselves short.

Still, there's one nagging problem with the whole affirmative-action scheme, and John Rosenberg nails it:

Since it is now not discriminatory to take race (and presumably other such matters) into account, isn't it discriminatory not to, at least at institutions who are on record (as virtually all are) worshiping at the altar of "diversity"?

Zymurgy's Law of Evolving System Dynamics, which can't be appealed to the Supreme Court, now kicks in:

Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can.

Is there a can big enough for all of this?

Posted at 7:20 AM to Political Science Fiction


Bush provoked 9-11.

Republicans better than Democrats on National Security?

That myth exploded with the first plane that hit the first World Trade Tower on Sept. 11.

I need you and 5 of your friends to read and sign this important petition.

Tell the Republican Congress that you don't support the mean spirited radical Republican agenda.

Tell CVS Pharmacies to tell HMOs in NY that they must even out their premiums or CVS will lose our business in NY

The George W Bush 2000 Stolen Election Commemorative Coin

All profits go to charity.

If you run a website with progressive links please post these links. Thank you.

Posted by: stolenelectioncoin.com at 6:58 PM on 24 June 2003

The above was edited by me to remove all hyperlinks; if the son of a bitch wants me to plug his pet causes, he can damned well pay me for the privilege.

Posted by: CGHill at 7:49 PM on 24 June 2003

<closes mouth after staring, agog, at the first comment>

No.

No way.

That had to be a joke.

Didn't it?

Posted by: McGehee at 8:25 AM on 25 June 2003

Okay, the website actually exists, but I still think it has to be a joke.

Even if it wasn't meant to be.

Posted by: McGehee at 8:28 AM on 25 June 2003

They've advertised that coin on, among other places, Cruel Site of the Day.

I wouldn't have minded so much if any of that tripe had had anything to do with the posting to which it was attached, but no. This was a hit and run. And it's not so surprising, really; why should anyone expect an unrepentant Marxist to have any respect for private property?

Posted by: CGHill at 10:42 AM on 25 June 2003

No can will be large enough to re-can these worms.

The fundamental premise of preferences is that groups confer rights on their memberships, and, by corollary, that individuals have no rights apart from their group affiliations. Since groups are undefined in any enduring, objective sense, the State will have to step in and be the arbiter of 1) who belongs to what group and 2) what rights that membership confers.

This is a blueprint for totalitarianism. In the name of fairness, of course... but when has it ever been rationalized any other way?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at 9:11 AM on 26 June 2003