— The Supremes get one right. The vote was six to two, Justice Kagan having recused herself, for reasons I don't know.
Here's the background to the case. Back in 1996 a white lady, 43-year-old Barbara Grutter, decided on a change of career and applied to the University of Michigan Law School. She was rejected, but she found out that black and Hispanic applicants with lower academic scores than hers were admitted. She sued Lee Bollinger, the President of the University, on racial discrimination grounds. So the case bears the name Grutter v. Bollinger in the law books.
A 58 page dissent spewed forth from the Justice who thinks:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with
the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion
than a white male."
Wonder is she thinks that about black or asian males also? m/r
Radio Derb Transcript
by John Derbyshire 4-26-14
La Latina loca. Justice Ginsburg seems not to have written up her dissent, but Sotomayor, a racial socialist of the worst kind, vented her wrath at great length — 58 pages.
I can't tell you I have read all 58 of those pages. I fear that if I were to do so, I would solve the Hard Problem of consciousness, at least temporarily, by losing consciousness. The few pages I sampled were full of convoluted and scientifically illiterate flapdoodle. Sotomayor writes, for example, that:
Colleges … must be free to immerse their students in a multiracial environment that fosters frequent and meaningful interactions with students of other races, and thereby pushes such students to transcend any assumptions they may hold on the basis of skin color.
End quote. Six points of criticism on that.
Point one: In the first place, as Justice Kennedy pointed out, the matter before the Court wasn't the constitutionality of affirmative action, but whether state voters may decide by voting whether to have or not have affirmative action.
Point two: It's hard to see why colleges financed by voters' taxes "must be free" to do things that 58 percent of voters disapprove of.
Point three: The notion that affirmative action "immerses … students in a multiracial environment" is questionable. When our colleges have segregated "Africa House" dorms and black fraternities, Black Studies and Raza Studies programs, dining halls where the blacks all sit together, and math and computer science classes where blacks are harder to find than polar bears in Puerto Rico, where's the "immersion"?
Point four: The notion that this "immersion," if it even happens, "fosters frequent and meaningful interactions with students of other races" rests on
Contact Theory, a sociological theory popular in the 1950s but now discredited by Robert Putnam and others. If you want further confirmation that Contact Theory is a heap of dog poop, compare the way white people vote in Mississippi, which has always had lots of blacks for Contact Theory to work its magic with, to the way white people vote in Vermont, which has few blacks, and that only recently. In which of those two states are the whites singing "Kumbaya"? Right.
Point five: The assumptions that most 18-year-old college freshmen hold are the ones hammered into their heads from infancy onwards by the multi-culti propagandists of the public education cartels and mass media. The great majority of college freshmen don't need the multi-culti indoctrination that Justice Sotomayor seeks for them. The job's already been done. They arrive at college already believing everything she believes.
Point six: Race has nothing to do with skin color; it's to do with
race — with ancestry and inheritance. Australian aborigines are black, but they are genetically no more closely related to West Africans than I am — less so, in fact. There are albino West Africans whiter than Sissy Spacek. There are hill tribes in Burma darker than Barack Obama. Anyone who does not understand this should be locked in a room with a copy of Mark Twain's novel
Pudd'nhead Wilson and not let out till they've memorized it.
-go to links-
