The Great Unmasking
Here is something to ponder on the Fourth of July. While no one was noticing, on Friday afternoon, a three-judge panel drawn from the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
Like the California Civil Rights Initiative some years back, this was a project pushed by Ward Connerly. When put on the ballot in Michigan in 2006, which was a very good year for the Democratic Party in the state, it received 58% of the vote. All that it did was to outlaw racial discrimination in public university admissions in the state of Michigan, and it did so on the grounds that racial discrimination, when practiced by the government, contravenes the requirement that there be equal protection under the law for all Americans.
We live in a remarkable age. Thanks to Barack Obama and the generation of liberals whom he represents, a great unmasking is taking place. “Affirmative action” is a euphemism. It stands for a racial spoils system, and it is on its face inconsistent with the principle of equality embedded in the Declaration of Independence. Now, fortunately, the euphemism is gone, and everything is out in the open. There are privileged Americans. They fit into what are called “protected categories.” Then, there are the rest of us. We are here to be taken advantage of.
As you re-read the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence on Monday, think about the choices we face. It is not enough that we slow down the momentum of the administrative entitlements state. We need to reverse the direction of the country, and to do that we need to put the argument to our fellow Americans and persuade them that it is high time that we return to first principles and put our house in order.
Which of the potential Republican nominees can best do that? Who has the courage to speak the full truth? What has the stamina to follow through? Think about it. The hour is late. Think hard.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Massive rot and corruption at the very foundation of our nation, yet the people still sleep. Alarms are going off everywhere, but nobody awakes. Over 40% of Americans "like" the Anti-Christ-in-Chief and all his minions. It's a nightmare. You're right, the hour is very late.
Oct '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Karl Marx believed that the end benefit of communism was the total collapse of civilization, nihilism, and in the fantasy that the Utopian society would emerge as the Phoenix, from the ashes.
We have the "honor" to be the generation which might actually get to test that belief. If America, and hence Western civilization, does collapse, what will follow? As hard as it will be to reverse what the progressives have done to America, think of the alternative.
Apr '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
How interesting that a derived (invented?) Constitutional concept (disparate impact) trumps explicit Constitutional verbiage (equal protection).
Let us now invoke the Constitution in order to abrogate it.
The failure to racially discriminate is itself racially discriminatory. Colorblindness is racism. What the hell did Martin Luther King, Jr. know anyway?
Hear ye, hear ye: The Sixth Circuit is now in session, the honorable White Queen presiding. Hurry up, we've got to get five more absurd decisions in before breakfast.
Edited on July 2, 2011 at 4:02pmJun '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
This is really weird. I just wrote a note to Detroit News complaining of typos and grammatical errors in this article. I go to Ricochet and here I see Dr. Rahe's post referring to the very same article. Spooky synchronicity.
Dec '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
This reminds me of Steven Hayward's column and the finality of the Declaration, as described by Coolidge. There is no "progress" beyond all men are created equal; that's final.
Dec '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Michael Patrick Tracy: How interesting that a derived (invented?) Constitutional concept (disparate impact) trumps explicit Constitutional verbiage (equal protection).
· Jul 2 at 7:01am
Edited on Jul 02 at 07:02 am
This is why we need to take the interpretation of the Constitution out of the hands of lawyers. Only someone who has gone through 3 years of law school can believe the Constitution doesn't say what it means.
Apr '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
AmishDude
Michael Patrick Tracy: How interesting that a derived (invented?) Constitutional concept (disparate impact) trumps explicit Constitutional verbiage (equal protection).
· Jul 2 at 7:01am
Edited on Jul 02 at 07:02 am
This is why we need to take the interpretation of the Constitution out of the hands of lawyers. Only someone who has gone through 3 years of law school can believe the Constitution doesn't say what it means. · Jul 2 at 7:49am
They believe it says what it means. They just don't believe it means what it says.
Sep '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
No candidate who seriously wants reverse the direction of the country has a snow ball’s chance of getting the GOP nomination. I regard Paul Ryan as one of the more courageous Republicans and he is proposing to add $5 T. to the national debt over the next 10 years. That is not reversing the direction of the country. Face it, unless the tea party movement takes over the GOP, we will need a third party before any substantial change in direction is seen
Aug '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
raycon,
You're spot on. Ironic, isn't it, that Jefferson had the Marxist/Utopian madness in him too? He reveled in the bloody French Revolution, writing:
"The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam & an Eve left in every country, & left free, it would be better than as it now is." - T. Jefferson
Letter to William Short, October 1799
We are fighting an ancient battle, seeded very long ago.
Edited on July 2, 2011 at 5:14pmApr '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
Thanks for linking that piece, CJRun. Those statements by Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration are magnificent.
If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
----------------------
As to Dr. Rahe's question on who has the courage to say the things that need saying; Bachmann and Perry seem to be courageous enough. Perry is probably better at articulating American ideals with more clarity. Heck I dunno, I want to read what Dr. Rahe thinks.
Dec '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
The unfortunate problem here is that the Sixth Circuit is likely correct. And it is easy to understand why ...
Assume that academic talents are distributed according to a "normal" distribution. That means for a college the size of the University of Michigan, if 15% of Michigan's population is African American, 15% of the student body would be as well. That might not be true, by the way, for a small sized right wing college like Hillsdale simply because a "normal" population would not apply for admission.
When the State tells the University it cannot look at the race of applicants, that means the University has no tool available to determine whether the factors it is using to decide admission are in fact racially discriminatory because you cannot determine whether your admissions criteria are discriminatory unless you look at race. If U of Michigan is admitting a class with only 5% African Americans, U of Michigan is likely discriminating. It can only cure that problem if it is allowed to "validate" admissions criteria against the actual race of applicants and admitted students. The Sixth Circuit allows U of Michigan to use real numbers to make sure it does not discriminate.
Jun '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Dr. Rahe,
I think most of the people here, including myself, are beyond the thinking stage and are ready for the "doing" stage. We've seen the signs and many have roused our friends and neighbors to the call. In 2010, we elected mostly conservatives. But what then?
Even when our state and federal representatives manage to force a bit of legislation that limits the scope of government through the keyhole of the door of opportunity, a liberal judge is laying in wait to stop or reverse such moves. WI union legislation, Prop 8, limiting Planned Parenthood in Indiana, affirmative action in MI; all challenged by activist judges.
So what is to be done? If talking has worked well, if writing has worked well, even voting has worked well, yet the people are robbed of their ability to govern themselves, what should be done?
As for me, I don't know, I'm just a simple gardener who tries not to heed the world of the "big folk" much more than is necessary.
I'd like to do something, but, what is to be done?
-SG
Jun '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
An interesting thought, but incorrect.
First, you cannot assume intelligence is normally distributed, nor can you assume the same distribution applies between groups (not just racial groups but SES, religious and other cultural groups, etc.) The jury is still out on this point, in a big way.
Universities should not be concerned with making sure their student body is exactly representative of their state or country. They are concerned with admitting those students who merit admission through test scores and GPA, which are only markers of intelligence. Thus, they discriminate on the basis of intelligence (insofar as they use GPA and test scores as intelligence markers), as their aim is to admit only the brightest students.
If their goal was to admit a representative sample of their state, country, or world region... then statistics on race would certainly matter.
But, since races have an equal opportunity (key word: opportunity) for admission based on intelligence, merit based admission is not discriminatory.
Apr '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
Equal Protection does not imply, nor should it be expected to result in, equal outcomes. Any analysis that misses that obvious point is fundamentally flawed, at odds with the Constitution--and nothing but mischief, however well-intentioned, can come of it.
Jun '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
At least the soft middle is disappearing. Procrastinators will be forced to pick a side.
Dec '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Samwise Gamgee
They are concerned with admitting those students who merit admission through test scores and GPA, which are only markers of intelligence. Thus, they discriminate on the basis of intelligence (insofar as they use GPA and test scores as intelligence markers), as their aim is to admit only the brightest students.
There is overwhelming evidence that testing--SAT, ACT, IQ--suffers from extreme racial and cultural bias. Indeed, it has been suggested that testing may suffer from political bias as well.
GPA does not mean much in these grade inflated days.
Having sat on the "enrollment management" committee of a very good small liberal arts college for a number of years I can assure you that there is no "objective" data, and that the so-called "objective" predictors of college success are of limited value.
Perhaps the only thing worse than the favored college admissions tests are the "norm referenced" achievement tests suburban schools use to assure parents that their children are learning above grade level. It is truly fascinating how all the children in those high property tax suburbs always test above grade level.
If you truly believe college admissions are merit based (anywhere), think again.
Jun '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Harry Huntington
There is overwhelming evidence that testing--SAT, ACT, IQ--suffers from extreme racial and cultural bias. Indeed, it has been suggested that testing may suffer from political bias as well.
There is certainly no one objective, perfect indicator of intelligence. But when all are considered in conjunction with each other, a relatively reliable picture emerges with which to use for college admissions.
The "overwhelming" evidence you refer to in terms of so called "cultural bias" is actually quite underwhelming when investigated in a scrupulous manner. Such suggestions go far beyond the data and are largely the result of progressive minds in such esteemed fields such as sociology and psychology. Not to mention the fact that there are large bodies of evidence from these same fields that suggest that no such bias exists. Suffice to say, the point is contentious and hardly as set in stone as you suggest.
But of course college admissions are not merit based. Some individuals are admitted simply because they have been judged by the color of their skin and fall short on any and all measure of intelligence, imperfect though they are. But, I'm sure you know all about it.
May '11
Re: The Great Unmasking
Harry Huntington
If you truly believe college admissions are merit based (anywhere), think again. · Jul 2 at 10:14am
Gag me with a spoon again. I have been poisoned.
Nov '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Like many or most well-intentioned programs, affirmative action is ultimately destructive of the very people it intends to help. In my experience, many or most affirmative action candidates are thrust into studies that they are not equipped for. This results in an inferiority complex evidenced by self-segregation on campus, and a stampede into cultural studies of dubious quality in which frustration and anger are understandably duly vented.
I am thoroughly sympathetic with the intentions, but affirmative action is a destructive practice.
May '10
Re: The Great Unmasking
Bachman has the understanding as well as the titanium spine for the task. Perry may have as well but I don't know enough about him to say for sure. Perry, Bachman could be a dream ticket. The greater task is to educate enough voters to overcome the progressive media machine at the polls.