The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
The United States Supreme Court, in a highly politicized legal precedent, struck down the policy of affirmative action which has been followed for a few decades in most of the nation’s university and college admissions policies. Institutions of higher learning have consciously attempted to improve the educational experience of minority racial minority students by giving a relatively small degree of preference to qualified Black, Asian, or Latino applicants. Clearly this policy was meant to redress some of the biases under which these groups have lived for many generations. It was believed that if these students were accepted into colleges that in previous generations would never have been granted them admission, it would benefit them, the communities from which they came, and the entire American society.
With the stroke of six pens, in a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled that noble intention must no longer be allowed to stand. The majority opinion was expressed by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wrote that race-based admissions policies “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Nothing written by anyone in the majority of the court’s decision better illustrates how wrong John Roberts was to call affirmative action wrong. John Roberts’ father was a high-ranking steel company executive, and he attended an outstanding exclusive Roman Catholic high school. Because of his extraordinary self-discipline and determination, he did exceedingly well as a student there. He is one of millions of upper-class American students through the centuries who have been admitted to elite schools of higher learning in large part because they were upper class. It is a wonderful bonus for the Funds Development Department.
However, Mr. Roberts’ opinion was an egregious example of glaring white prejudice for him even to write such an ill-considered statement. Millions of Blacks, Asians, and Latino people are identified primarily by the color of their skin, and not by the challenges they have bested or the skills they have built or the lessons they have learned.
It is astonishing that the Chief Justice of the nation’s highest court could write such a hurtful, insensitive, incendiary legal opinion. But there was worse to come in the 6-3 Republican-to-Democratic-nominated members of the SCOTUS.
Here is what Clarence Thomas wrote, only the second Black man to serve on the court (Thurgood Marshall has been rapidly rotating in his grave ever since).The majority, said Thomas, “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.” In that observation Justice Thomas was absolutely correct: most of the best universities and colleges were attempting to promote exactly that outcome.
However, Clarence Thomas, of all people, has colossal chutzpah even to think such a thought, intending it to be a well-stated calumny, let alone to write it. He himself is a clear example of how a race-based admissions policy advanced his career to an extent that never would have occurred had he not been its beneficiary.
Justice Thomas was born in the tiny oceanside hamlet of Pin Point, Georgia, and attended Roman Catholic elementary and secondary schools in Savannah, Georgia. Had he been born Black and was raised in Scarsdale, New York or Grosse Pointe, Michigan or Winnetka, Illinois, and had he attended public schools in such communities, he might never have been accepted for admission to Holy Cross College or Yale Law School. Other more qualified Black students from those communities might have been turned down in the 1960s or 70s, but Clarence Thomas was very likely accepted because he was a bright young man from Pin Point.
The three minority justices did not go down to defeat on the SCOTUS decision without a strongly-worded legal rejoinder. In her written opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s position “cements a superficial scale of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”
There are three women on the high court who were nominated by Democratic presidents, and one nominated by a Republican president. The five men on the court were all nominated by Republican presidents. I would make this observation about the five male justices: They are all males who, by their decisions in this case and among other potential types of “ists,” identified themselves as racists and sexists. Their racist resemblance is illustrated by their vote in the Harvard/ University of North Carolina case. I would further note that most of the males they love to quote and emulate, who composed the United States Constitution, were also racists and sexists.
The decision of the SCOTUS majority with respect to affirmative action is, literally, “an abomination before the Lord,” as it says in holy writ. It is a horribly painful illustration of why all federal judges should have a term-limit of twelve years, which is what US senators were given by means of the ever-too-often-acclaimed Constitution. It is also the term-limit which members of the House of Representatives should be given. (The president should have a limit of one six-year term, if only to save the American people from having to endure an exorbitantly expensive and dismal presidential election every four years. But all that is the subject of another OLD Philosopher essay.)
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.