Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Content Of Their Character

I have always hoped and believed that this country should be color blind.
I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Unfortunately, the first black president doesn't agree with me. Or at least, the first black president's Supreme Court appointees don't share that sentiment.
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

“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 who hasn’t lived that life...”
Exactly what is it about a "wise Latina's" life experience that makes her more qualified than anyone else, regardless of ethnicity? If you flip that argument on its head, you could postulate that a wise black/white/Asian/Native American/fill-in-the-blank could "reach a better conclusion." Isn't that the essence of racism?

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS decision regarding whether or not the voters of the state of Michigan can decide for themselves what their state will do in regards to racial preferences.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that Michigan voters had the right to ban racial preferences in university admissions didn’t sit well with the court’s self-described “Wise Latina,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor...

The court didn’t rule on the merits of affirmative action, but simply on whether voters can opt to ban its use in public universities...
That last point totally escaped the "wise Latina's" notice. In her zeal to promulgate affirmative action, Sotomayor totally overlooked the focus of the case at bar. She also revealed herself as the worst sort of apologetic racist - one who make excuses for an ethnicity, and by extension argues that they are not competent enough to achieve equality on their own.
The Constitution, (Sotomayor) wrote, “guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals — here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.”

In other words, one of the highest Hispanics in the land argues that, without preference policies, minorities can’t hope to reach a proportionate participation in universities.
Except for Asians:
SCA 5 is a state constitutional amendment that seeks to lift the ban on the use of race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin in admission at California's public universities and colleges.

Proponents of SCA 5 hope it will make it easier for under-represented minorities, such as black and Hispanic students, to secure enrolment. But Asian communities fear that this will come at their expense.

"I am so appalled to see this bill was proposed," said Xiaofei Zhang, the father of a girl in 10th grade, after the amendment was debated in Cupertino town hall.

"My wife and I spend the majority of our salaries on our daughter's education so that she can take piano lessons and learn all the skills that will get her to better universities one day.

"College admission should be solely based on merit. SCA 5 reverses the history and that's not American."

Asian students dominate admissions to a level that far outstrips their ethnic representation in California's population.

They made up 36 per cent of the University of California's admissions last year, despite making up only about 14 per cent of the wider population.

In contrast, blacks made up 4 per cent of admissions compared to 7 per cent of the population.
Would someone please explain to me why it is acceptable to use "race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin" as admission criteria in California, but not in Michigan?

And while you're at it, please explain why there are such disparities in admissions between racial groups...?

God help us all - this 'wise Latina' will be deciding Constitutional issues for decades to come...


Harper said...

I won't take the cheap shot (something about oxymorons and wise Latinas).

Anyone who has to put a racial or cultural descriptor in front of their name is part of the problem. Such actions have nothing to do with equality or inclusion, they are a deliberate act, meant to draw attention to what makes them different and deserving of special treatment.

CenTexTim said...

"I won't take the cheap shot (something about oxymorons and wise Latinas)."

Harper, I admire your restraint.

"Anyone who has to put a racial or cultural descriptor in front of their name is part of the problem. "

For example, the first black president...

Old NFO said...

+1 on Harper... If you want to watch a stutter step, it's when a friend of mine from Salisbury, Rhodesia puts down African American... Since he happens to be white... ;-)

OBTW, he actually carries a copy of his birth certificate when he 'knows' the issue may come up...

Toejam said...

Militant, insecure paranoid Latinos are no different than Militant, insecure paranoid Blacks.

Both feel they must overcome the White man's tyranny by any means whether immoral, deceitful or plain violent.

The scary part is that like Obama, Holder & Hillary Ms. Sotomayor has been ordained into the high ranking evil cartel America has ever experienced.

jeff said...

As Valerie Jarret put it so succinctly, " We have judges in place, anyone who is for us we will reward, anyone against us...."
I paraphrase but it certainly shows the lefts plans and Sotomayers placement in the court was just another step.

Sorry..for the bad punctuation..a little too much wine tonight.

CenTexTim said...

NFO - great story! And it shows how meaningless labels are.

Toejam - the militant insecure paranoid minorities aren't alone. There are plenty of guilt-ridden whites 'helping' them.

Jeff - It's not just Sotomayor. obama has appointed enough federal judges at all levels to screw us for decades.

And don't worry about the wine. Hemingway once said he did some of his best writing when he was drunk.