Court Overturns Color-Blind Law; Not Taking Race Into Account is Racist

Share

altIn a ruling that displays a powerful amount of cognitive dissonance, a federal appeals court has overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Also called Proposal 2, this became part of Michigan's state constitution in 2006.

The law was passed to ensure that the government, along with government run schools, would have to be explicitly color-blind with any decision they made. In short, they would have to judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that policy was racist.

The bill says:

  1. The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University,  and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
  2. The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

The court overturned the law saying it, "harms minorities and is unconstitutional." Think about that for a minute. According to the sixth circuit court's logic you must treat people differently because of their race...or else you are  a racist.

This strikes at the heart of a great debate in or country. When the country was founded, it was based upon the ideals of liberty. We would have equality of opportunity for everyone. The same rules and regulations applied equally to all citizens. This was buttressed by the passage of the 14th amendment. Among other things, it affirmed that ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

This view guarantees the rights of all. Importantly, such a position is the only way to avoid systemic violations of rights by the government. Either you treat all citizens equally, or you pick winners and losers. Either you have a neutral impartial law, or you have institutionalized class warfare...at best.

This view stands diametrically opposite to the leftist desire for equality of outcome. Leftists don't think it is fair that some people succeed while others fail. Fundamentally, this stems from Karl Marx teachings. According to Marx, no man succeeded based upon his own merits. He was simply a cog in a machine. Everything about him was determined by his class and his environment.

Philosophically, Marxism is materialistic. Unlike the common use of the word the philosophic meaning denies the efficacy (or even the existence) of the mind) Which is to say, it doesn't believe in free will.

Given that world-view, it's unsurprising that leftists push for equality of outcome. After all, if your success (or lack thereof) is purely random it's hardly fair that some people have more than others. If your wealth isn't based upon your choices and work, then no one deserves more than anyone else. So, the natural conclusion is to level the playing field.

That sounds nice and shiny, but in reality it is revolting. It means taking from the college graduate to give to the high school drop out. It means taking from the person that works 100 hour weeks and giving to the guy that just can't be bothered to get a job. It means taking from the entrepreneur who risked his fortune, and worked long stressful years and giving to the person to apathetic to try.

The sixth court follows this facet of Marxist philosophy, and that is why they are driven to such an absurd position. You must be racist in order to avoid being a racist. Hopefully this case is taken to the supreme court, and re-instated. That would be a substantial victory, because a supreme court ruling would prohibit government racism at any level.

A still bigger victory would be overturning the philosophy supporting equality of outcomes, and replacing it with the equality of opportunity necessary for liberty.

 

Rational Public Radio is an Objectivist podcast and blog, a.k.a., the rallying center for reasoned warriors in the fight to gain and keep individual freedom.

Comments  

 
+9 #1 Jim 2011-07-01 13:41
Yup. Well "not taking race into account is racist" - that was the idea behind "affirmative action" in the first place. The leftists' real problem is that if you provide equality of opportunity to different groups of people, the outcomes will NOT be equal. Not because of hidden racism, but because different groups are, in fact, different. They hate that. They'd do anything - pass any law, whatever - to avoid that reality.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
-1 #2 tmana 2011-07-02 08:38
Not quite echoing Jim: the idea here is that race-nonpreferential treatment negates "affirmative action", whose intent is to equalize opportunities originally barred through race-based class assignment. (The word "assignment" is key here: certain racial minorities did not *choose* to belong to lower socioeconomic classes; they were forced there for generations.) If, indeed, "all men are created equal", then given equal opportunities, there should (in theory) be a statistically equal distribution of races, genders, etc. across the pool of persons in any profession, in any level of that profession, and at any income level. While I would argue this to be a false assumption for a number of reasons (including religious and/or cultural restrictions, and insufficient resources to take advantage of the opportunity), those who passed this legislation believed that a preferential increase in higher-income opportunities for the previously-repressed groups would result in their proportional integration into the majority culture.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+5 #3 Jim 2011-07-03 16:16
No one has ever seriously believed that "all men are created equal" applies to the talents and abilities of individuals. It is held, though, that it SHOULD be true of ethnic groups. Unfortunately, it just isn't: the idea behind "affirmative action" is a false assumption.

Strange though, that leftists' always profess to believe in Darwinian evolution - if you've read any Darwin, you know that this idea makes no sense. Isolated populations will diverge in traits.
Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Create an account to avoid having to fill out the form each time you post.


Security code
Refresh