A chance to undo a terrible injustice

If Dred Scott “shall stand for law,” wrote the journalist William Cullen Bryant in 1857, then slavery is no longer the “peculiar institution” of fifteen states but “a Federal institution, the common patrimony and shame of all the States…. Hereafter, wherever our … flag floats, it is the flag of slavery…. Are we to accept, without question … that hereafter it shall be slaveholders’ instead of the freemen’s Constitution? Never! Never!” As Bryant said of Dred Scott, so must we say of this hideous Grutter ruling and its corrosive lies: that we will never accept it, never give into it—even if generations must pass before it is finally overturned.

So I wrote in 2005 at FrontPage Magazine about the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. In that ruling the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined nonwhite group privileges in the U.S. Constitution, allowing state universities to admit less qualified black and Hispanic students in place of more qualified whites. Now the news comes that it may not take generations to overturn Grutter, but only ten years. The Supreme Court is going to hear another affirmative action case, brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who says that the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race. Judging by the New York Times article on the case, liberals are genuinely worried that Grutter may be undone.

If you want to understand Grutter better, a good place to start is my above-linked article. (Note: it’s not casual reading.)

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

Liberalism isn’t just about equality as they speak the word. Non-liberals hear about equality and are astounded that Abigail Fisher would be denied admission because she is white (probably in preference of a non-white). This violates their understanding of equality. However, the liberal meaning of equality means that Abigail Fisher not only can, but should, be denied admission because she is white, if that slot is to be taken by a non-white.

This is the typical cultural Marxist trick, using the exoteric meaning of the word equality against us while pushing their esoteric meaning. That this liberal equality holds sway is a pattern of the madness of our age, which is to say one thing but mean another, that is, to lie; we live in the Age of the Lie. The ruling elite push the lies and the people gobble them down. The essence of Grutter is a ruling elite explanation of how obvious inequality is actually equality. The Supreme Court told us, “Who are you going to believe? Us, or your lying eyes?” Liberals should be worried that Liberalism and all its works will be entirely undone, I pray for it daily.

February 23

Robert B. writes:

Here is another story on the case. This is really big. Please note the comments. [LA replies: there are 3,000 comments!] My daughter sent me this and indicates this is a growing sentiment amongst college students—too many have tales to tell themselves and resent their diminishing opportunities in the face of AA.

LA replies:

What I still can’t figure out is why, with the vast number of whites who have been discriminated against and harmed by minority racial preferences, there have been so few suits against the preferences system, and why they have taken so long to develop. 25 years between Bakke and Grutter. And now another 10 years between Grutter and Fisher.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM | Send