Blasting the recent ruling on school desegregation, Hillary Clinton said at last night's debate that the Supreme Court had "turned the clock back" on history. Actually, it's sometimes a good idea to turn the clock back.
C.S. Lewis once wrote, "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
Hillary thinks that since things in the past used to be very, very bad, whatever we do to move away from that must be very, very good. Therefore since America used to discriminate against blacks, now it must discriminate in favor of blacks. Since the American South used to force blacks and whites apart, now it must force them together.
This is the craziness that passes for "civil rights" today, and this is the craziness that the Supreme Court is trying to stop. The solution to discrimination in jobs, government contracts, and university admissions is not more discrimination; it is to choose the best candidates based on merit. The solution to school segregation is not coerced integration or busing; it is to let children attend their neighborhood school. This is what Thurgood Marshall argued in the Brown case: let kids go to their local schools.
So if we have to discuss this in terms of clocks, I think we should turn ours back to the original vision of Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. This is the idea of the race-neutral or color-blind society. Better, let's go beyond the whole framework of "going backward" and "going forward." As I argue in my book The End of Racism, we need a fresh debate on race that breaks free of old categories and gives up the pretense that any criticism of current policies is a return to the bad old days of the past.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 5)
16. Does this (Dinesh D'Souza) get everything wrong? How does this man survive in todays society? What an idiot!
dj at 1:42PM on Jun 29th 2007
17. I think it interesting that so many to day call it racist when the court holds that it is unconstitutional to use race in making decisions about the benefits it gives citizens. (This is a similar holding as in Brown.)
Bushthwak - I think you misunderstand DD’s position and maybe your own. DD is AGAINST governmental use of race in making decision. That was, in fact, the holding in yesterday’s opinion. If your are opposed to yesterday’s opinion it must be because you are in favor of using race as a consideration.
Greg at 1:42PM on Jun 29th 2007
18. BT - When you wrote "'Racism doesn't exist...'" who exactly are you quoting?
Greg at 1:47PM on Jun 29th 2007
19. 10. I agree with you Dinesh. Your comment ""we need a fresh debate on race that breaks free of old categories...."" is true. But discrimination and racism bind African-Americans together like the Holocost binds together the Jewish community.
>>>
What binds African Americans together are single parent families, not racism. What keeps Blacks down is starting life without two parents. In every study done we know that most children from single parent families will fail ... no matter how much money we throw at them. What Blacks need to do is stop blaming dead white men and start taking responsibility for their children.
It's not racism ... it's parenting.
Thomas J Gassett at 1:56PM on Jun 29th 2007
20. The problem with 'color blindness' is that it becomes synonymous with 'racial insensitivity'. Even where it may not be intended to do so. For instance, a person applies for a job as a police officer, without taking into account the race of applicant, it is possible that the majority of those 'most qualified' may be white. This would result in ethnic neighborhoods being patrolled by a police presence that does not even vaguely represent that neighborhoods residents. Understandably, that would be like living under a foreign occupation.
Other jobs--grief counselors for instance--might go to applicants who have nothing in common with those in the community they are supposed to help.
Many jobs--those dealing with people--go way beyond a physical or technical skill set. Those that fill such jobs need to bring with them to the job language and cultural lexicon common to those they are supposed to help.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 2:05PM on Jun 29th 2007
21. Bushthwak - I think you misunderstand DD’s position and maybe your own. DD is AGAINST governmental use of race in making decision. That was, in fact, the holding in yesterday’s opinion. If your are opposed to yesterday’s opinion it must be because you are in favor of using race as a consideration.
>>>>
I think you misunderstand the ruling. The court said you can't use ONLY race as a consideration. Race can still be used as ONE consideration. Therefore I see no reason to call anyone racist or to deem the ruling as racist. Clearly, to only use race as a consideration is racist. What are we arguing about ... does anyone really know?
Thomas J Gassett at 2:06PM on Jun 29th 2007
22. For all you folks out there - not one of you know your civics or else you missed civics when you were in school - none the less, each president cleans up after the last president therefore Bush is cleaning up after Clinton. Personally, I've not seen one good honest day's work from any president, senator, or representative in over 50 years. Some have come close but no cigar. Vent all you want but only you can change things by voting for the right Senator or Representative - one that has actually accomplished something and not one just because his name is one you've heard a lot. Do your research - go back into their past and see just where they have stood and how they have voted. Remember, the voter has the power to make the changes and if you sit on the rail and take someone else's word that the person is the right person and you don't do your homework than what you get is what you deserve. To make a change in a democracy the people have to get smarter and vote wisely.
Lenore at 2:29PM on Jun 29th 2007
23. Greg sez - Bushthwak - I think you misunderstand DD’s position and maybe your own. DD is AGAINST governmental use of race in making decision.
No - DD' isn't.
What DD' is against is the Government taking any remedy in law which may benefit black folks, while he defends those situations where discrimination engenders disadvantages.
DD' is a race pimp. He's the conservative version of Al Sharpton, who is well paid to obsefucate and provide cover for less commercially palatable and polished racists who wish to re-establish defacto Jim Crow, as a legal entity.
So... What's not to understand about that?
Bushthwak at 3:14PM on Jun 29th 2007
24. It's pretty obvious from the responses here that the real racists are on the left. Not that this is news or anything.
Eddie at 3:47PM on Jun 29th 2007
25. This guy is a nut! He absolutely is condoning racism. Amazing how guys like him and Clarence Thomas - a man who benefited absolutely from civil rights - shun the very systems that helped them.
Turn back the clock, Dinesh? Sure, why not? Hey, let's take away women's right to vote and put them back in corsets and hoop skirts while we're at it. Idiot!!
David S. at 3:44PM on Jun 29th 2007
26. er Keith in post 20: "The problem with 'color blindness' is that it becomes synonymous with 'racial insensitivity'. Even where it may not be intended to do so. For instance, a person applies for a job as a police officer, without taking into account the race of applicant, it is possible that the majority of those 'most qualified' may be white. This would result in ethnic neighborhoods being patrolled by a police presence that does not even vaguely represent that neighborhoods residents. Understandably, that would be like living under a foreign occupation.
KB - A foreign occupation? Would you listen to yourself? First of all, the chance that no blacks would apply to be policemen is tiny. Secondly, why is the color of a person's skin so important to you? Would it bother you if all the cops in your town were Black, Latino, or Asian? If that would bother you, why would it bother you? I live in a town in California where most of the police are Latino, and I could not care less. It sounds like you would prefer a "central planning office" or something like that to oversee all job placements in order that we have the proper percentage of races properly distributed around this nation.
K - Other jobs--grief counselors for instance--might go to applicants who have nothing in common with those in the community they are supposed to help.
KB - Again, it sounds like you would refer this to the economic central planning committee that exists somewhere in your imaginary economic model. People are people the world over Keith, and they can understand each other and feel for each other regardless of color or culture. I have seen Catholic priests of various colors tend to parishoners during their sorrows. A buddhist preist can comfort a Christian during time of need and vice versa. Do you think victims of that Tsumai in Thailand cared what race those who them were? Do you think the folks in New Orleans would have cared what color helpers were if they had in fact arrived as they should have? You are grasping at staws, and making this too complicated.
K - Many jobs--those dealing with people--go way beyond a physical or technical skill set. Those that fill such jobs need to bring with them to the job language and cultural lexicon common to those they are supposed to help.
KB - I grant you the point that language is important, but as long as people can understand each other, skin color and indeed culture make no difference.
Ken Berg at 4:47PM on Jun 29th 2007
27. Greg requests - "When you wrote "'Racism doesn't exist...'" who exactly are you quoting?"
DD'
"The End of Racism" - in which DD lies that racism "no longer has the power to thwart blacks or any other group in achieving their economic, political, and social aspirations."
Now - as to the Government's right to make rules based on race - we have the origins of the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section II - which rules that slaves are only 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of their Masters voting. Ergo, a slaveholder with 1000 slaves got 600 votes...
While everyone else only got 1.
Which is probably the genesis of the Jim Crow voting the Rethuglys were able to enforce in 2000 and 2004.
Thurgood Marshal said:
"The implicit protection of slavery embodied in the Declaration of Independence was made explicit in the Constitution, which treated a slave as being equivalent to three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning representatives and taxes among the States. Art. I, § 2. The Constitution also contained a clause ensuring that the "Migration or Importation" of slaves into the existing States would be legal until at least 1808, Art. I, § 9, and a fugitive slave clause requiring that, when a slave escaped to another State, he must be returned on the claim of the master, Art. IV, § 2. In their declaration of the principles that were to provide the cornerstone of the new Nation, therefore, the Framers made it plain that "we the people," for whose protection the Constitution was designed, did not include those whose skins were the wrong color. As Professor John Hope Franklin has observed, Americans proudly accepted the challenge and responsibility of their new political freedom by establishing the machinery and safeguards that insured the continued enslavement of blacks."
Of course the missing element for our lowbrow conservative associates, is that 1670 many states had already passed "Slave Codes" defining slavery as a uniquely black, and generational - institution. And by 1830, every slave state had passed "Black Codes" which stripped even free blacks of the right to vote, testify in court, or to own property all under the impremur of the Constitution.
And DD', who denies slavery was a racist institution...
Is going to reference Marshall?
As I said before, our boy DD' is lower than a 2 bit racist crack whore.
The decision yesterday was parallel to the Cumming vs. Board of Education of Richmond County, Ga. decided in 1899 by the SCUMUS, which allowed the closing of a free public black public school for fiscal restraint reasons, even though two free public segregated white schools imposed no fiscal difficulty on the county.
Which is why you don't even want to get into how the SCUMUS 5 violated both the 14th and 5th Ammendment as defined under Brown...
Or why the Constitution and the Courts have considered race in hundreds of decisions since the founding of the country.
Bushthwak at 6:24PM on Jun 29th 2007
28. Pardon me, my eyeballs are bleeding. Okay, cleaned them up a bit. My brain HURTS!! Bush, the MURDERER,tries to do away with diversity in schools, and alot of you do not understand why it's wrong? Ay Dios Mio! If you do not care for your children to attend a racially diverse school, might I suggest private school? Not a Friend's prep school, those kooky Quaker's believe in thing's like, peace, equality and diversity. A whacky bunch, yes? For exg, George School, my daughter's school, most racially, religious, sexual orientation diverse school in the country.
First, Bush says, Sorry citizen's, I say no subpoenas needed to tap your phone, Okay, K. Now this.
I suppose my phone is already tapped, considering my daughter and husband are, OH MY GOD, Muslim. No, she did not say that. Those people. They are scary terrorists.
I am leaving this country until we get our constitutional laws in proper perspective. When we learn there comes a point when it has to stop.
I suppose that will happen when Bush is gone and we have a Democrat back in office.
I know all you closet Racists want to wish me a speedy BYE-BYE, Au Revoir.
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More troops MURDERED in the last three months than any others.
Peace............
rhodalee at 9:10PM on Jun 29th 2007
29. I tend to agree with Thomas Gassett. The breakdown of the nuclear family seems to be something few people are willing to address however... because that too would be "turning back the clock" and acknowledging that social work in this country needs to focus on building stronger families. For example, study after recent study is showing that fathers play a more critical role in a child's life than has been recognized for some time. Even despite that, success as an individual is very dependent on the support and stability provided by one's family.
I'm not one who thinks that attendance at neighborhood schools is going to necessarily benefit all students. Schools in communities with more economically successful families are still going to provide more opportunities for the students who attend those schools, compared to others. However, the solution is NOT to bus children all over the place and in the meantime, continue funding all schools in general. How about fixing those "neighborhood" schools that do not provide as many educational opportunities? Why don't we look at what's going on with the teachers? How about more work in the community in general to promote good parenting skills and parental involvement in the school and all areas of their children's lives?
I agree with D'Souza in the fact that we need to stop trying to prop up a broken system. It's time to think of new ways to give students better opportunities.
eM at 11:44AM on Jun 30th 2007
30. Bushthwak - "‘The End of Racism’ - in which DD lies that racism "no longer has the power to thwart blacks or any other group in achieving their economic, political, and social aspirations.’"
So you must now agree that the quote from DD that racism no longer exists in inaccurate. And I think you would have to agree that racism no longer has the power it once had and that it is true that blacks can no longer be completely prevented from obtaining their aspirations. That is undeniably true in a country where one of the leading candidates for the presidency is black. That is not to day that racism does not exist, and DD makes no such claim. His book is an attempt to argue for the best way to go the last part of the way and completely eliminate racism.
Your analysis of the Constitution is simplistic at best. First the 3/5 compromise was for the allotment of congressional seats and taxation not voting. Slave holders got no additional votes for owning slaves. By counting slaves as less than a free person the South was allotted fewer congressional and electoral votes. This gave more power to the non slave holding states. This power discrepancy helped to eliminate the slave trade as soon as constitutionally possible and put the US on a track to abolition from the outset of the union.
Your absolutely wrong that the recent decision was parollel to the Cummings decision. Thursday’s decision was opposed to the concept of using race to make decisions about where to send children to learn. Cummings was exactly the opposite, as were the Jim Crowe laws which were predicated on using race to make decisions about how the government treats people.
Greg at 11:35AM on Jun 30th 2007