Racism is the act of singling out a person because of the color of their skin, treating them differently, and acting in ways or making decisions toward them that one would not make if not for the color of their skin. Of course racism exists–denying this would be naive. Racism stems from each race being different than another, and racism will exist as long as this is the case. The most obvious difference between cultures is race, and so race is blamed for the differences. But institutional racism can be ended in one simple decision: take the race question off of all legal forms. True equality would mean making all races equal and indistinguishable under the law, the way the 14th Amendment specifies when is dictates equal protection under the law. Affirmative action is a law that does not grant equality; Affirmative Action is racism.
The Supreme Court has heard the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas in favor of minority students despite being more qualified. This means that the university singled out minority students and treated them differently than they would have had they been white. Affirmative action is racism. Racial preference means that minorities are not treated as equals. Affirmative action, by its very nature, infers minorities are inferior to whites, and thus need an unfair leg up. If there were ever an institution that gave whites preferential treatment even if they were less qualified for a job, admission, scholarship, or so on, then we would have a need for affirmative action. But in this day and age that rarely–more likely, never–happens. Does our society believe minorities are Inferior?
Not only does affirmative action suggest that minorities are inferior, but there is evidence that affirmative action may actually be detrimental to minorities. Proposition 209 was a California ballot initiative on affirmative action. The citizens of California voted to end racial preference in their state. What happened afterword gave an interesting insight. Minority enrollments into the state Universities declined, but the number of minorities graduating stayed the same, while the rate of graduation grew. This means that Affirmative Action was not helping minorities graduate, in fact, it was hurting them. Because they were given preference in schools, some students were being admitted to schools they were not qualified for. Because the graduation rate stayed the same this means many of these students did not finish college. Affirmative action was getting them into a school that, for one reason or another, they could not finish. This is not a racial thing, white students similarly qualified, if admitted to these schools would expectedly have the same result. What this does mean, however, is that these minority students left college with no degree, most likely large amounts of student loans, and a bad experience with higher education. How does any of that help minorities?
Now, of course there are many minorities that have graduated from college and become very successful. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor has even referred to herself as an “affirmative action baby”. Now, how this does not create a bias on her part that should cause her to recuse herself from the case is beyond me; however, we will have to play that song another day. Either way, the evidence suggests that she would have graduated from a great school—even if that school was not Princeton or Yale—and gone on to a successful career regardless. But if affirmative action is granting admittance to students who will only be harmed by attending that university, the racial preference should be done away with. The evidence suggests Justice Sotomayor is the exception, not the rule.
Consider this: in his own 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that it makes no sense for immigrant students to get a world class college education, then be sent home to their country to compete against the United States. Affirmative Action furthers that problem. Not only are some immigrants being given admission over citizens, but minority citizens are being given admission over more qualified citizens. This means that we are giving more immigrants degrees, and sending them home to compete against less qualified Americans. Summing it all up, we are giving other nations an economic advantage over our own, but we are shooting ourselves in the economic foot. The best candidates–no matter what race they happen to be–should be the ones admitted to schools. For the less qualified students, there are less prestigious and demanding schools to fit their needs. If every student goes to the right school we will have more graduates holding more degrees in every race. This helps minorities, the education system, and the economy.
True equality does not have racial preference; moreover, it has no preference at all. This nation was founded on the idea that all men are created equal; not that all men become equal. Being created equal means we all have the same rights, and that we achieve based on our own capabilities. Becoming equal means minorities need help to earn equality–inferring that they are inferior as people to the white race; this is racism. Not only was our nation not built on the idea of becoming equal, but the champion of civil rights, the great Martin Luther King JR–one of the greatest men in our history–did not support the idea of becoming equal. Being born equal and being treated equal was his vision. His dream was “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The very purpose of Affirmative Action is to judge people first and foremost by the color of their skin.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the three basic human rights repeated from kindergarten to doctoral theses, but Affirmative Action limits liberty, and hinders the pursuit of happiness for thousands of whites who are not granted admission to schools they have earned the privilege to attend, and for thousands of minorities who are not able to finish at the school because they were not as qualified their peers. Race discrimination is rampant in college admissions. Affirmative action not only hurts minorities, but it also hurts whites, and the entire nation and economy as a whole. It is time we took Dr. King’s dream, and the 14th Amendment for what they are. If races are really equal, Affirmative Action needs to end. There is no place for racism in America.
15 October, 2012
You heard it here first. Patriotslog reporting live from the Supreme Court on the decision finally made regarding the Obesity Initiative for Nutrition and Care act of 2048, commonly referred to as OINK. After being tied up in the court system for six years we finally have the verdict. According to the 8 to 7 split decision on the Supreme Court, the government can in fact create mandatory diet plans for all residents (both citizens and illegal immigrants via the Immigration compromise of 2023) of the United States. It is expected that former First Lady Michelle Obama will be delivering an address on her lifelong initiative from her home any minute now. After her many years of hard work and dedication to “save Americans from themselves”, we may finally see the national obesity rate drop below 96%. Former Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is refusing to comment on the ruling, and in an apparent attempt to starve herself to death in protest has barricaded herself in her nursing home room, refusing to speak to anyone. Her only correspondence is a hand written sign taped to the outside of her door which states: “They can tell me what to eat, but the sure can’t force me to eat it.” Not yet, anyway. However, one has to wonder how long it will be until legislation is passed which states they can. Read the rest of this entry
This coming week the Supreme Court will hear three days of oral arguments; the length of the arguments indicates what a monumental case this is. The last time the court designated 6 hours of arguments was in 1966. As patriotslog has previously written, the universal health care system is not a good idea. On paper and in theory it works out splendidly; however, in practice, it never produces the results envisioned by the creators. It is expected that the issue at the forefront of the case in the Supreme Court is the issue of the individual mandate for health insurance coverage the law created. Does the government have the power to force each citizen to purchase health insurance, whether they feel a need for it or not? This issue has largely defined the Obamacare argument, though it is only a small part of the effect carried by the legislation. To be fair, the Affordable Care Act legislation does provide some needed reforms to health care which largely benefit the American people. Among these are the legislation to make illegal the practice of denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition; premium hikes being subject to review; a mandated percentage of revenue for health insurance providers being spent on care, as opposed to advertising or management; premiums cannot be higher for women than for men, as they have been in recent history; and premiums cannot be raised for individuals who develop a disability such as asthma or diabetes. One can debate the fairness of these provisions as well as the need for them; but with the price of health care continuing to rise it is almost unanimous that something must be done. President Obama feels these provisions are the answer the public needs. Read the rest of this entry
It has become the campaign banner for Republican candidate in elections nationwide, and this week the United States Supreme Court has finally determined it will hear the case concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on Nov. 10 and decided to take the case because of the division among the circuit courts on the ruling. This means that sometime next year we will have the long awaited decision on whether the Affordable Care Act, which has come to be known across the country as Obamacare, is or is not in fact constitutional. At the core of the argument is whether or not the federal government can legally mandate that every American purchase health insurance. Other mandates of the law, such as a child staying on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26, are not being challenged in their constitutionality. Read the rest of this entry
Mississippi has an interesting law on the ballots in next week’s state elections; granting human rights at conception. Amendment 26, up for vote in Mississippi would grant humanity rights at conceptions. This means that as soon as a sperm combines with an egg the same rights granted to you and I are given to the embryo. The obvious purpose in this bill is to make abortion criminal on the same level as murder. If, as Amendment 26 would legislate, human rights are granted at conception it creates complicated legal situations. The obvious implication is that anyone found taking part in an abortion would be implicated in a murder investigation, and subsequently charged. This is the goal of Amendment 26, which is expected to pass comfortably in the deep Christian society of Mississippi.
Granting human rights to an embryo could cause some complicated problems. To start, many believe that this Amendment 26 violates the judicial review of the Roe v. Wade decision, which does not allow a law to regulate abortion prior to completing the first trimester, where the “abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.” however, the Roe v. Wade decision does allow states to regulate abortion as they see necessary after the first trimester is complete. Read the rest of this entry
Violating the Fourth Amendmant With Warrantless GPS Tracking
During this fall session, the United States Supreme Court will hear what is possibly the most meaningful case pertaining to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in the last decade or more. The court will essentially rule on what constitutes a person’s privacy. In the landmark case of Jones v United States, the Court will rule whether it was and is an unconstitutional act for law enforcement personnel to install a GPS tracking device on the car of a suspect without first obtaining a warrant, and subsequently track that persons movements for months at a time.
Antoine Jones had been suspected of trafficking illegal narcotics in Virginia, by the FBI, who placed a GPS tracking device on his vehicle while parked in a public area, then used the device to track Jones’ movements for a month, eventually leading them to a depository of Jones’ which held nearly 100 kilograms of cocaine, and $850,000 in cash. Jones was tried and convicted to life in prison. This sentence was then nullified when a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the GPS tracking violated the rights of an American citizen; therefore, the arrest and conviction were due to unlawful practices and were thereby invalid. At issue here is whether or not the FBI violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment right guaranteeing protection from unlawful search and seizure, often referred to as the right to privacy, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Read the rest of this entry