Segregation through the back door

(via Prestopundit)

Eric Rasmusen reports that the recent Grutter decision is more in line with segregationist thinking than with the spirit of the 14th Amendment:

O'Connor's majority opinion is more pro-segregationist than even Plessy v. Ferguson. On O'Connor's logic, separate treatment is clearly allowed, for "diversity" purposes. But it does not have to be separate but equal. Blacks (or, if the argument is anything but special pleading, whites) could get extra scholarship money, or other special treatment. Bakke's conclusion that quotas are illegal does not fit her logic. If a university claims that having a separate all-black luxury dorm has an educational purpose, that should be allowed, by her logic. As should a separate, all-white university. Thus, the U. of Mississippi was in the right in 1962, in the current Supreme Court's view.

Wow. As Prestopundit says, "[t]hink about that for a moment."

Share this