Buying back into the Illusion for a moment, I have to say that I can't believe what is still going on in this country;, regarding the unconstitutional practice of 'racial preferences'. Back in the mid-'90s, with what, as I recall, was the Bakke decision in California (a white student passed over for medical school in the public University of California school system, even though he had a better grade point average than a back student admitted ahead of him, suing for a redress of his - legitimate - grievance), I thought that that business - a perversion of the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s; wherein the liberals behind those initiatives swore up and down that the Acts did not have anything to do with quotas, were simply about eliminating discrimination on the basis of color - had been put to rest. I have just found out that I was wrong.
I have just read (in the Nov. 5 issue of The New American (an admittedly 'right-wing' publication, but more conservative/constitutionalist than that blanket description of its politics) about the University of Texas at Austin's admission policies, up for legal review because they discriminate against whites and Asians, in favor of blacks and Hispanics - i.e., in favor of using race in admission decisions.
Let's get clear here. In this country, according to the Constitution - i.e., the 14th Amendment thereof; which mandates "equal protection of the laws", i.e. in effect that the law must be color blind - everybody is equal across the board before the law; no singling out of persons on account of whatever category for special treatment - and thus outlawing de jure discrimination, i.e., discrimination by law (as opposed to de facto discrimination, which is simply 'discrimination' - personal preferences - based on social considerations) - you can't discriminate in law against someone on the basis of race - period. Well; a caveat to that. Quoting the article: "Previously, in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Supreme Court held 'that government could only use race-conscious measures to remedy its own past racial discrimination and could not do so to provide proportional representation or to address other social ills, the proponents of preferential treatment turned to other theories to justify the continuation of such programs;'" and the article went on to quote one Todd Gaziano, the commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:
"'The diversity rationale was promoted for college admissions under the theory that an undefined "critical mass" of certain minority students was necessary for all students to learn important lessons. In the case that approved this rationale, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Chief Justice Rehnquist effectively demonstrated in his dissent that what was really going on at the University of Michigan was a strict adherence to proportional representation.
"'But no matter. Five justices approved the theory.'"
And just so, did the law become an ass.
The article goes on:
"When the Michigan rulings were handed down - even though the court said these were narrow decisions not meant as an endorsement of racial preference - the University of Texas viewed the door as being wide open to making admission decisions based on race. The university revisited its admission policies that had been in place since its previous policies had been thrown out by a federal court in 1996." [That would have been because of the U of Cal Bakke decision.]
"Legal expert Hans von Spakovsky noted that the university then overturned 'its "top 10 percent" rule for admissions to the state college system.' Under that rule, students who graduated in the top10 percent of their high-school class got automatic admission to all state-funded universities…That rule, von Spakovsky pointed out, had 'led to diverse enrollment at UT Austin and minority students with higher grade point averages and better retention rates. Despite that success, UT Austin re-implemented race-based admissions the day the Grutter decision was announced.'"
So: we have ideologues at work and play here. The article goes on to describe some of that 'work':
"Institutional racism again became the basis for admission to the University of Texas, being defended in part with arcane theories based on how many minorities should be admitted in order to benefit the psyches of the overall population." I kid you not. And further in this same social engineering vein:
"The university, wrote von Spakovsky in National Review Online for September 19, 2011, 'defended its decision by arguing that while minority enrollment was up because of the Top 10 Percent Plan, it still does not mirror the overall demographics of Texas. Furthermore, UT asserts that individual classrooms still lack a "critical mass" of blacks and Hispanics, so reintroducing discriminatory preferences is justified.' "
I may vomit. This, in America? Whatever happened to the free country that I left over thirty-five years ago?? What have the liberals done to it ??? - in this sort of context. What the money buccaneers have done to it is another matter. But for now, let me summarize the damage to the rule of law and to the social fabric wreaked by the Left in education:
* Racial preferences. Preferential racial treatment, above and beyond just trying to 'remedy' the government's "own past racial discrimination". Reverse discrimination - by law. (The mind boggles. And thinks of such principles as how two wrongs don't make a right.)
* A "critical mass" policy in classrooms. Regardless of the individual's interest in a major, kids need to be set down in classrooms by diktat and authority of the state. We know what's best for you. You will do as you're told.
* College admission in order to benefit the psyches of the overall population. The educational system to be used for that purpose - regardless of the law.
This is social engineering to the nth degree. Not constitutional government; aka the rule of law. But the rule of the all-powerful state.
I won't have it. Not in my country.
This nation was founded not only on the rule of law, but to be a beacon of Light unto the nations of the world, emphasizing the principle of personal liberty - NOT state-imposed 'equality'.1
And, I suppose that it was inevitable that a form of reaction would set in. I'll try to make this sharing on this issue, and where I'm going with it, as brief as I can. So, briefly: the excesses of 'individualism' - the socio-political principle thereof - create the conditions for the rise of 'collectivism'. In the economic arena, that takes the form of capitalism vs. communism - yet once again; but now with the addition of the 'global' factor this time, as the historical process has been brought to a culminating point. So we have the makings of a socialist end-time New World Order on the one hand - or rather, by the looks of it, a hybrid of socialism and fascism, with Obama recognizing the need to keep some semblance of private property going, to keep businesses (and therefore tax receipts) going - and on the other hand, an all-out fascist NWO of the Power Elite; both of them committed to totalitarianism./a totalitarian agenda for humanity.
The fascist side of things I can understand; it was always a potential threat, with the country basically siding with producers/entrepreneurs - wealth makers. But how did socialism get so powerful in the American psyche that it could come to this pass, as a very real threat to our freedoms?? It was, from the beginning, an import, from 'the old world'. One wonders about the naivety of the average American.
However, I acknowledge that it was not all the public's fault. As the article goes on:
"Keep in mind that while the American public is opposed to racial preferences by about two-to-one, the major players in academe think this social engineering is fine and downright dandy.
"Indeed, as an August 14 article in Inside Higher Ed, an online magazine, acknowledged, the bulk of the briefs supporting the administration's policy 'made clear that the establishment of American higher education is solidly behind the University of Texas and the consideration of race in admissions.'"
And here it comes, from the top of establishment Education in America:
"The New York Times invited dialogue about the case (published on October 7), which produced the following vapid observations, especially when viewed in a legal context [my emphasis], by the president of the American Council on Education. The council filed an amicus brief in favor of the University of Texas. Gushed Martha Broad, by way of explanation: 'Life-changing moments happen when students interact with classmates who do not have the same experiences or perspective. Education in a vibrant and diverse environment will better prepare our graduates for our increasingly globalized economy.'
"And if we have to throw some members of certain groups over the side because of their skin color, that will no doubt be a 'life-changing' moment for those rejected because they are Caucasian or Asian…"
'Well, it's just too bad. They need to be sacrificed for the good of the whole' is the clear and honest implication, of all this social engineering business; this end-justifies-the-means immoral business.
It's deja vu all over again: busing, for racial balance…'It's for your own good.' I'll make that determination for myself, thank you very much, Establishment Education in America.2
And just so is the Constitution jettisoned; to say, the rule of the law in the nation. For it stands in the way of the Brave New World of these socialists in charge of our education these days and decades.
That's not the only thing standing in the way of such an outcome. There is me, for one. And, apparently, two-to-one of the population with me.
We are to be airily dismissed as 'racist'? Excuse me? We're the racists here??…No. It won't wash. Take your socialism, and your totalitarian New World Order, somewhere else. Not in America. We are free willed souls here.
Ascension can't come soon enough for me. Otherwise, there is going to be civil war in this country. Mark my words.
For I know the fundamental American spirit.
1 During the legal debate before the Supreme Court on the issue of segregated schools in the South - i.e., de jure segregation - the petitioners provided the Court the writings of a Swedish socialist scholar named Gunnar Myrdal. In his major book on such socio-political issues, he wrote: "In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning." That is the most clear and succinct phrasing of the issue that I have ever come across. Thank you, Mr. Myrdal, for stating so clearly this fundamental issue: between individualism and collectivism. Between Man being his own sovereign, and the state being sovereign over him, capable of making him do whatever it wants him to do - and keeping him from doing whatever it doesn't want him to do.
Not that I've noticed, in the Constitution...
2 I have actually been aware of this takeover of "establishment Education in America" for years. Many years ago I started looking into the field of Education in this country; first after coming across the book 'Why Johnny Can't Read' in my university bookstore; picking up nuggets to take with me as I left formal education before graduating and started a lifelong search for Truth, in many areas, including the ultimate. I then revisited that particular arena years later, when my eldest nephew started school, and I wanted to see how they were teaching reading 'these days'. In spite of all the evidence that phonics was the best way to teach reading, they were still into the whole word/'look-say' method. So much for kids learning how to sound out words for themselves, and read whatever they wanted, rather than the menu that the 'experts' wanted them to stick to; figuring that was the way to keep them from being individuals; independent of the state's curriculum for them. For, people can't be trusted to be their individual selves, you see. They may not make the right decisions…being the mere cattle that they are. To be herded and culled, at the will of the state.
Because Big Brother knows best.