American Renaissance - 3 - August 2003
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com Electronic Mail: AmRen@amren.com
Continued from page 1
Jared Taylor, EditorStephen Webster, Assistant EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
To their credit, the justices appear tobe a little worried by race preferences,and look forward to the day when theyend: “[R]acial classifications, howevercompelling their goals, are potentiallyso dangerous that they may be employedno more broadly than the interest de-mands. Enshrining a permanent justifi-cation for racial preferences would of-fend this fundamental equal protectionprinciple [of the 14th Amendment].”Consequently, wrote Justice O’Connor,“the Court expects that 25 years fromnow, the use of racial preferences willno longer be necessary to further the in-terest approved today [namely, diver-sity].”Also, the justices pride themselves onnot giving the green light to just any kindof racial preferences. They issued theusual denunciations of quotas and racialbalancing (“patently unconstitutional”),arguing that preferences cannot be ap-plied mechanically but must be “holis-tic,” giving “serious consideration to allthe ways an applicant might contributeto a diverse educational environment.”Race can be an important factor but itmust be handled mysteriously and notopenly.It is because of this distinction thatthe racial preferences practiced by theUniversity of Michigan undergraduatecollege were found unconstitutional, butthose practiced by the law school werenot. As noted in AR’s earlier cover story,the college had a rating system with arange of 103 points, and simply addedan automatic 20 points to the scores of all blacks, Hispanics, and American In-dians. (Having perfect SAT scores wasworth only 12 points more than gettingevery question wrong.)No good, said the court. That smellsof quotas. They liked the way the lawschool did it better. There, the admis-sions committee mulled and communedand pondered, and considered, and de-vised a system in which “all factors thatmay contribute to diversity are meaning-fully considered alongside race.” Thelaw school bureaucrats conceded thatonly 27 percent of the preferred minori-ties could have gotten in without racepreferences—about the same percentageas in the undergraduate school—butsince they conferred preference lessmechanically, the justices blessed theprocess.The justices were pleased that the lawschool did not necessarily make race theonly or primary diversity “plus factor,”but asked all applicants “to highlighttheir own potential diversity contribu-tions through the submission of a per-sonal statement, letters of recommenda-tion, and an essay describing the waysin which the applicant will contribute tothe life and diversity of the Law School.”Maybe even white people can be carri-ers of diversity. But, as black commen-tator Elizabeth Wright asks, what aboutstudents who just want a law degree andthink this is all rubbish? Clearly, Michi-gan is no place for them.In fact, if we really must have racialpreferences, the undergraduate systemwas better than the law school’s. It wasclearly numeric, and everyone knew howit worked (although U of M tried to hidetheir system, and divulged it only whenforced). However, a transparent 20-points-for-blacks scheme is too open andstraightforward; our rulers like their ra-cial preferences veiled, mysterious andsubjective. They want people puttingthumbs on the scales in the back room,not out where everyone can see.With a secret system, everyone is inthe dark. If whites know that at U of Mthe deck is stacked against them by 20points, they can apply to some other col-lege where the anti-white bias was setat, say, 15 points. Blacks and Hispanicswant to know where they get the mostpreference, too. The Supreme Court hasnow forbidden that kind of openness, soapplicants take their chances with sys-tems that, by law, must be whimsical andinconsistent.In effect, the undergraduate collegehad a version of race norming, which isthe cleanest, most open, and in fact the
way to discriminate against whites(see next article). However race norm-ing, like the point system, has beenbanned. It is not mysterious and subjec-tive enough.
In addition to enshrining diversity asa vital national goal, the Supreme Courthas given its blessing to a trendy newbit of sociology called “critical mass.”According to this doctrine, it is notenough to have just
blacks, His-panics, etc. A handful of non-whitescould be admitted without racial prefer-ences at all but the most demanding cam-puses, but the court says that’s not goodenough for three reasons. First, theremust be enough of them so they won’tbe lonely, or pressured to think they arespokesmen for their races. Second, theremust be enough to go around: whitesmust not have to stand in line for dosesof diversity. And finally, there have tobe enough of each kind of non-white forwhites to realize they don’t all think thesame: “racial stereotypes lose their force