The Degradation Of Personal Achievement

From My Vault (7/1/03) No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Section 1, 14th Amendment)[quote style=”boxed” float=”left”]Only in the mind of liberal judicial activists can portions of the Constitution be disregarded for agenda-driven racist positions.[/quote]

Yet that is precisely the end result of Grutter v. Bolliger (University of Michigan Law School / Affirmative Action Case).

Ms. Grutter, a white Michigan resident, filed the suit alleging that the respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race … that she was rejected because the law school uses race as a “predominant factor,” thereby giving favored status to applicants belonging to certain minority groups.

The Supreme Court recognized that Michigan seeks to “admit a group of students who individually and collectively are among the most capable.” The law school looks for individuals with “substantial promise for success in law school” and “a strong likelihood of succeeding in the practice of law and contributing in diverse ways to the well being of others.”

One would think that a resident applicant with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score would have an excellent chance of admission, but unfortunately for Ms. Grutter, being a female is no longer “minority enough;” she needed to be a black female – that would have assured her the winning hand.

The Court wrote: “In reviewing an applicant’s file, admissions officials must consider the applicant’s undergraduate grade point average and law school admissions test score, because they are important (if imperfect) predictors of academic success in law school.”

But the Court incomprehensibly wrote “the policy makes clear, however, that even the highest possible score does not guarantee admission to the Law School. Nor does a low score automatically disqualify an applicant. Because grades and test scores are coupled with a flexible assessment of applicants’ talents, experiences and potential to contribute to the learning of those around them.”

The Court’s rendering begins to sound a lot like an “American Idol” program.

In this writer’s opinion, the court could not have been more wrong, nor could the majority have danced a finer line.

One would hope their opinion was a pusillanimous display of gutlessness; because if not, the only consideration left is that the majority Court is intent on benevolence toward blacks and the punishment of whites for that which they are no more responsible today than were most during the slave-trading days.

Only in the mind of liberal judicial activists can portions of the Constitution be disregarded for agenda-driven racist positions.

Ms. Grutter played by the rules; she worked hard and she studied hard in pursuit of her goal of attending University of Michigan Law School. No one would care – nor should they – if she were denied admission because of a black applicant with a 4.0 GPA and a 170 LSAT score. At that point, fine – to the best applicant goes the seat. But the Court acknowledged that race – and race alone – carried the day for another student over Ms. Gutter. Yet they did nothing to correct the wrong, they compounded it.

How can any self-respecting black be expected to hold their head up and take pride in their accomplishment when deep in the core of their being they know the truth? “It’s not because I’m the best, it is because I’m black.”

Where does this madness stop? If a white athlete wins an Olympic qualifying race, should the officials say, “Wait a minute; we’re giving the win to the black guy (who finished 10th) because Tommy Smith and John Carlos were dismissed from the 1968 Olympic Games” – Jesse Owens notwithstanding.

This ruling is neither a step forward, nor is it a moment to be celebrated. It is a moment for logical minds to shake their heads in disgust.

The high court, specifically Sandra Day O’Connor, would do well to remember, that it is the opportunity that every man, woman and child shares in common through the Constitution that extends mobility – not benevolence toward a particular racial group at the expense of those not responsible for past ills, in an attempt to assuage a white liberal’s conscience and keep black votes on the plantation.

The blatant disregard for the document which sets America apart from all others, in an attempt to cover for some injustice (perceived or otherwise) is the degradation of personal achievement.

*********************

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MYCHAL: “Thanks for reading this article! If you enjoyed it, please sign up to receive new articles via email by clicking here.  We HATE spam as much as you do and we promise to NEVER, EVER, sell your information to anyone EVER! We will only share with you ideas and information that we feel is worthy of our subscribers. Remember, just click here to sign up for our email alerts. Thanks!”

*********************