Affirmative Action
Weren’t the past 40 years of affirmative action intended to rectify the lingering consequences of slavery and Jim Crow? Never mind that white women and wealthy Blacks were the ones who benefited most…. Enough already!
(“Senate Apologizes for Slavery; Blacks Say, ‘Show Us the Money (Reparations),” The iPINIONS Journal, June 19, 2009)
This quote might suffice to explain why I’m hardly surprised or dismayed by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan can ban race as a factor in admissions to its public colleges and universities.
But it’s important to note that, just as it did with gay marriage, the Court merely recognized the reserved right of each state to decide whether to ban or allow affirmation action.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one.
‘This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,’ he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ‘It is about who may resolve it.’ [Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurred.]
(New York Times, April 22, 2014)
It’s also important to note that this ruling does not ban private colleges and universities, even in Michigan, from using race as a factor in admissions, or private companies from using it as a factor in recruitment, hiring, promotion, etc.
Yet, given the reaction among Black activists and civil rights groups, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Court declared affirmative action unconstitutional.
Granted, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of Blacks and Hispanics on campuses in the few states that have implemented similar bans on race as a factor in admissions. And yesterday’s Court ruling will undoubtedly embolden initiatives to ban affirmative action in other states.
What’s more, I’m acutely mindful of the hypocrisy inherent in those who oppose affirmative action based on race, which schools have practiced for a few decades, voicing no opposition to affirmative action based on family ties or financial donations (aka legacy preferences), which they have practiced for a few centuries.
But I’m convinced that cognitive dissonance – most notably recognition of the pragmatic value of diversity among students in classrooms and campus life – will overcome the backlash against affirmative action. Especially considering that, as indicated in my opening quote, schools can better achieve the goals of affirmative action by actively recruiting students based not on race but on class.
In the meantime, states like Michigan, California, Texas, and Florida are bound to find that it’s in their enlightened interest to have more Blacks and Hispanics enrolling in colleges and universities than joining the ranks of the unemployed – with all the added burden on public services, not to mention the inevitable increase in crime, this entails.
Actually, in many ways, opponents of affirmative action ape those of immigration reform – who, despite their opposition, recognize the indispensable contributions illegal immigrants make to the economy and concede the categorical imperative of assimilating illegal immigrants. Indeed, I can see public colleges and universities in these states pursuing diverse student bodies as a laudable goal while paying lip service to their state’s ban on affirmative action.
Finally, lest you think someone forced right-wing Kool-Aid down my throat, it might be helpful to know that Justice Stephen Breyer, arguably the Court’s most liberal member, voted with the conservatives to uphold Michigan’s ban by a margin of 6-2. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.
Gun Control
When it comes to the most polarizing issues in America today, gun control ranks a close second to abortion rights.
Unfortunately, where the debate on abortion rights hinges on an authoritative definition of when life begins, the one on gun control is hostage to mob-like passions. After all, intelligent minds can reasonably differ on the former; but it requires rabid intent to distort the plain meaning of the Constitution (for base political or crass commercial purposes … or both) for intelligent minds to differ on the latter.
Here’s my take on gun control from “The Second Amendment and Gun Control,” December 19, 2012:
____________________
The Second Amendment specifically refers to ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.’ No doubt the framers thought it necessary because the American people might have to mount a second revolution if their own government became too tyrannical. But I suspect they thought this militia was necessary primarily to guard against enemies foreign (namely the avenging British), not domestic.
Whatever the case, the framers drafted this amendment 225 years ago. They would not have even thought of it if, back then, the United States had the well regulated police forces, to say nothing of the well regulated military forces, it has today.
It’s arguable therefore that the Second Amendment pertains primarily to those actively involved in ensuring national security. This means that nobody else has the right to ‘keep and bear arms.’ After all, the framers could not conceive of a US government so powerful (as it is today) that mounting a second revolution against it (no matter how tyrannical it becomes) would constitute mass suicide.
Still, I would concede that keeping and bearing six-cylinder handguns and double-barrel shotguns (for home protection) and single-shot rifles (for hunting) do not violate the spirit of the Second Amendment. But it would violate both its letter and spirit for civilians to keep and bear arms of any other type (e.g., assault weapons). Period!
Too many anti-gun advocates argue for a ban on all guns. But they are just as irrational as anti-immigration advocates who argue for the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Likewise, too many pro-gun advocates argue that civilians have the right to keep and bear everything from semi-automatic pistols to assault rifles (with magazines that carry 100 rounds). But they are just as irrational as pro-life advocates who argue that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. …
[T]he NRA has perpetrated a brazen and unconscionable fraud on the American people by pretending to be arch defenders of their right to keep and bear arms.
Because the NRA is just the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, and its sole mission is to ensure that those manufactures have the right to sell as many guns of every type to as many people as possible. Period! …
Granted, no less a person than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opined that it’s probably constitutional even to keep and bear “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes.” But I find his legal reasoning on so many points of law anachronistic, even specious.
If this self-professed “textual originalist” were more rigorously intellectual, and less vigorously partisan, he would insist that only muskets, bayonets, and single-shot pistols can pass constitutional muster. After all, these are the only types of arms the framers knew of and could have (originally) intended when they drafted the Constitution in 1787.
____________________
This is why I am so heartened, if not flattered, that no less a person than retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has effectively echoed my take.
Specifically, he proposes amending the Second Amendment with just five words to further clarify its plain meaning. Here is his proposed amendment (with the five words underlined) followed by his explanation as reported in the April 13, 2014 edition of the Washington Post:
‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment.
Again, the only people who will disagree with this take are rednecks and the right-wing politicians and NRA arms merchants who pander to them. Alas, I’m aware enough to know that we will live in a world free of nuclear weapons before we live in an America free of guns in the hands of private citizens … as framers of the Constitution clearly intended.
Case closed.
Related commentaries:
Senate apologizes…
Gun control debate is insane…