I had a problem with Thomas Sowell’s column. It was difficult to pick which paragraph to quote.
To be blunt, I find the reasoning the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision, “Brown v. Board of Education to be absurd. In 1954, many school boards believed in the theory of segregation, which to say the theory that races should be seperated. In Brown, the Court found that particular theory to be inherently unconstitutional.
Now some fifty years later, school boards have adopted a new and different theory, to wit, diversity. The diversity theory holds that somehow races must be mixed with some undeterminable amounts of so-called “critical mass” in order for school chldren to learn.
Now, school boards which were told in Brown, that they could not discriminate by race are askng the Supreme Court for the power to discriminate by race, all in the name of diversity.
Dr. Sowell, the classic economist, pits empirical data versus judicial theory in “Supreme Farce:”
Some of the learned justices are pondering whether there is a “compelling” government interest in creating the educational and social benefits of racial “diversity.” If so, then supposedly it is OK to do to white kids today what the Supreme Court back in 1954 said could not be done to black kids — namely, assign children to schools according to their race.
Read the “Constitution of the United States” The Constitution talks a lot about power, articulation of, seperation of, It spends no time talking about social goals. As the Constitution does not mention approved social goals at all, it should be impossible for the Supreme Court to find any constitutional basis for any particular social goal, be it segregation, desegregation or diversity.
Tags: BitsBlog, Race relations
December 12th, 2006 at 10:37
Well, here again, we have the government, this time, the judiciary, trying to legislate changes to the cultrue.
The reason for the lack of mention about social goals in the constitution is simple;
The culture was supposed to drive the government. Not the other way around.