Supreme Ct Decision on Univ of Mich Affirmative Action

I think Linda Chavez agrees with you on that..
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1069
Heres what she has to say..

"The Supreme Court's decisions on two cases this week left both sides in the affirmative action debate claiming victory, but the real losers were the American people.
At issue were two programs at the University of Michigan that gave preference in admission to certain minority students. In one case, Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld a program at the University of Michigan law school that gave preference to black, Latino and American Indian applicants; in the other, Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court struck down a similar program at the undergraduate level. But in both cases, the Court paid homage to the notion that "racial diversity" rather than non-discrimination is the true measure of equal opportunity in this society. In doing so, the Court not only reversed several decades of its own precedents but also, for all practical purposes, abandoned the goal of a colorblind society.

Forty years ago this August, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., stood at the Lincoln Memorial and gave a speech that galvanized Americans of all races. In his wonderfully stentorian voice, King invoked the image of a day in America's future: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal,'" he said. "I have a dream that my four 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."

'Plus Factor'

These words launched a civil rights revolution that was embraced by the American people and led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. As a result, America is today a more just nation.

Imagine what would have happened if instead of calling for equal treatment, however, the Rev. King had said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will be entitled to a 'plus factor' based on the color of their skin." As ludicrous as it might sound, that is exactly the principle a majority of the Supreme Court enshrined in their affirmative action decisions this week. No more should we expect the Constitution to be colorblind. No more should we expect the government to extend equal protection of the laws to all persons without regard to skin color. Henceforth the guiding principle will be race as a "plus factor" for certain -- though by no means all -- minorities. Asians and Jews need not apply for a "plus factor," despite the fact that both groups have faced significant -- and in the case of Asians, state-sponsored -- discrimination in the past. Meanwhile, even wealthy blacks and Latinos may be conferred preferential treatment because, without it, a majority of the Supreme Court implies, they cannot succeed.

Make no mistake, the underlying assumption in the Court's argument, especially in Grutter, is that blacks and Latinos cannot be held to the same high standards we expect of whites and Asians. The justices have sent a very clear message to black and Latino students: "We don't expect you to measure up." Melanin, their argument implies, will be treated as a measurable "plus factor" in order to make up for intellectual or academic deficiencies. It is a view that is racist at its core.

Justice Clarence Thomas in an eloquent dissent in the Grutter decision, recalled a speech by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass in 1865: "What I ask for the Negro," Douglass said, "is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. . . . All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . (Y)our interference is doing him positive injury." Douglass's words could not be more prophetic of the Supreme Court's mischief this week.

 

LMAO! The ole quote MLK trick. Deja vu...

 

Bill O'Reilly
America still has big trouble figuring out how to deal with racial issues. For a country that prides itself on "diversity," we continue to be clueless and even afraid to deal with race in a fair and constitutional way.

If you believe in what America stands for, then you must accept the fact that all U.S. citizens should be provided an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. That means that no one citizen can be put above another on the basis of WHO that person is. We all know that theory is not always practiced, but it should mandated by the federal law.

Therefore, no race-based preferences should be permitted in the USA. And that line of thinking mirrors the intent of the Constitution "to promote the general welfare." Notice the word "general." That means the welfare of all citizens.

So giving a black person points on a college admission application simply because of skin color is decidedly unconstitutional and unfair to boot. Do Michael Jordan's kids need those points?

However, there is another way to give disadvantaged Americans of all colors some help in improving their lives. And that is economic-based affirmative action. The plan is very simple, household income can and should be a consideration in any scholastic competition because there is no question that poor Americans have fewer resources than affluent Americans. So if a student from a poor family achieves academic success in high school, surely that effort should be taken into consideration by colleges that want to recruit quality student bodies.

Economic affirmative action would immediately help African-Americans without the racial polarization that comes from color preferences. The latest census bureau statistics put the black poverty rate at 23 percent, as opposed to the Hispanic rate of 21 percent and 10 percent for whites. Therefore, poor minority students who achieve would automatically be in the forefront of economic affirmative action, and so would everybody else who's poor. No race could scream exclusion.

Clear thinking Americans know we are all in this together. The U.S. military is not a race-based organization. Those who are fighting for our country all live and die under the same flag. There are no racial quotas in the foxhole. Military training also emphasizes teamwork, which means helping members of the team who may be deficient in a certain area. So let's take a lesson from the armed forces. All Americans should be looking out for their countrymen who are born into difficult circumstances. Anything society and the government can do to help those willing to help themselves is a noble enterprise.

But favoritism based on skin color or religion or family connections or any other personal characteristic was never part of the Constitutional mandate. The Founders saw too much of that in England and France, where the aristocracy took their privileges and the peasants got what was left over. The oppression of favoritism was rejected by the Framers, who knew it would lead to strife and violence.

Today in America, racial polarization is big business. People can achieve power and money by fostering entitlement thinking and hawking group victimization. Liberal guilt and conservative insensitivity both contribute to bitterness and unfair social policy. If racial harmony is ever to be achieved in this country, skin color judgments have to stop and the charlatans who push racial politics must be scorned.

The Al Qaeda killers don't care what color or religion or social class an American is. They just want to kill us. The more divided we are as a nation, the more opportunity our enemies have. Poor Americans deserve points for overcoming obstacles. I'm happy to award those points. And I don't care what color you are.

Mr. O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor."

 

Ha! only a total jackass like O'reilly could link Al Qaeda with affirmative action.