As we all realize from experience and intuition, race does not exist. It is nothing more than a perceived set of physical, intellectual, cultural, and behavioral traits that many believe they are able to discern…but in reality can not. It is a mirage, a lingering vestigial illusion. A meaningless echo from ancient epochs before man evolved into his modern form…in the 1960s.
But did you realize that sometimes race does exist? Yes, strangely. Despite our having been so reliably advised to the contrary, it seems that within certain penumbras and narrowly tailored circumstances, there actually is something that appears to be race.
And interestingly it is non-whites and their allies and advocates who have been its archeologists. Digging assiduously to unearth what we all knew the ground could not yield. I’m frankly more than a little skeptical. So exactly what would the left be hoping to reveal through its excavation? My suspicion is that certain dark elements may try to use “race” to enrich and advance themselves over the perceived lighter skinned people of our undifferentiated Nation of Immigrants. And this is not only morally repugnant, but scientifically reprehensible.
All remaining pillars of a racially categorized society must fall. One can’t very well have institutions considering a metric that science has proven does not exist. This is why we are the Reality-Based Community. And obviously “race” based affirmative action is one of those hoary unreal institutions that must be purged.
One would think the left would embrace this enlightened ideal, but through much research and clandestine investigation, I have learned they do not. Many of you will be unfamiliar with the information I am about to reveal. It has been mined from triple-encrypted communiques archived within unknown tranches of the Darknet. Here furtive confederates speak obliquely of their intentions to circumvent Supreme Court rulings and our own mutually embraced post-racial unicultural utopia. This plot is foul. It is real. And it is very well hidden. I discovered the conspiracy only by looking where no one else does: The New York Times.
Affirmative action as we know it is probably doomed.
When you ask top Obama administration officials and people in the federal court system about the issue, you often hear a version of that prediction.
Five of the Supreme Court’s nine justices have never voted in favor of a race-based affirmative action program. Already, the court has ruled that such programs have the burden of first showing “that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.”
The issue appears to be following a familiar path in Chief Justice John Roberts’s court. On divisive social issues, the Roberts court first tends to issue narrow rulings, with the backing of both conservative and liberal justices, as my colleague Adam Liptak has noted. In later terms, the five conservative justices deliver a more sweeping decision, citing the earlier case as precedent. With affirmative action, last year’s case involving Texas could be the first stage.
Beyond the Supreme Court, eight states have already banned race-based affirmative action, and four additional ones, including Ohio and Missouri, may consider bans soon.
Despite this reality, many supporters of affirmative action are in some version of denial. Top university officials say that the court hasn’t prohibited their approach yet and say they hope it never will. Few colleges or companies are trying innovative approaches.
Two new books aim to fill the void. They lay out detailed visions of an affirmative action that would combine racial and economic diversity–in contrast to the current version, which has done little to promote economic diversity. Above all, the books answer the common liberal concern that economic-based affirmative action is a bad substitute for race-based affirmative action.
“Race-based affirmative action is a blunt instrument that doesn’t help the vast majority of black and Latino kids,”says Sheryll Cashin, who is the author of one of the new books, “Place, Not Race” (Beacon Press), as well as a Georgetown University law professor and a former clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. “And ironically it engenders resentments that make it harder to build multiracial alliances to build investment in education.”
The insight of both books is that the obstacles facing many black and Latino children can be captured through a set of variables that are, on the surface, race-neutral. A system based on these factors, rather than race per se, would be undeniably constitutional and more politically popular.
The most obvious of the factors is income–but it is not the most important. Supporters of today’s affirmative action often point out that a strictly income-based version of the program would produce much less racial diversity, and they’re right. Fewer than one-third of households making $40,000 a year or less are black or Latino, according to census data.
I don’t know what these terms “black” and “latino” mean–presumably some despicable reference to “race.” Though one would think that many other of our immigrant children than just these two constructs would warrant the aid of their parent’s tax dollar. Strangely this is nowhere mentioned.
But note the bolded paragraph. The world’s dumbest criminals are advertising their intent. To create nominally race-neutral policies as tawdry and illegal expediencies for race-based results. I can’t wait until this filters into the public domain.
While this is all sublimely ludicrous and palatable only to the most plasticine liberal minds, is there much to expect different from these ten-cent flimflam men? Most shysters wouldn’t have high hopes in saying “Race does not exist, I demand preferences for my race.” But to what must be their perpetually pleasant surprise, we are as gulled as any dim-bulb doofus at the used-car lot. Though for those who would like the summary of this gambit, here it is in all glorious convolution:
When it is beneficial to whites for race to exist, it does not.
When it is detrimental to whites for race to exist, it does.
That is all.