“D” of Sub Judice responds to my response to his response, etc. (Note: Sub Judice’s archives aren’t working. Just go to the top and scroll down.)
I think this discussion has about run its course, by which I mean that I can’t think of much to add to what I’ve already said. I agree with “D” that Bob Jones will likely remain an interesting footnote so long as the Court regards the racial discrimination required by racial preferences in admissions, etc., as something different from racial discrimination in other contexts. If, however, this or some future Court were to hold that “diversity” does not provide a compelling justification for discrimination, then Mr. and Mrs. Gates may want to look for a very good tax lawyer. (Incidentally, “D” continues to bring up Trent Lott, but he wasn’t the only Congressman making these arguments. As I pointed out here, the young Al Gore voted five times with those who criticized the IRS ruling on Bob Jones.)
The bigger difference between us, and one that remains, is over what to make of the colorblind principle, i.e., that every individual should be judged “without regard” to race, creed, color, national origin. “D” wonders
When in American history has the colorblind principle meant (in constitutional law or in common parlance) what he thinks it means? Hasn’t it meant, variously: (1) equality for white citizens; (2) affirmative action (reconstruction congress era); (3) Jim Crow; (4) seperate but equal; (5) affirmative action redux; and (6) the diversity framework. I just don’t get it the appeal of the call for a return to some mythical racially pure past. [Of course, I’m not accusing Rosenberg of hoping for racial purity in an offensive way, I mean constitutional racial purity].
It seems to me that he rejects the principle because it has been so often and so thoroughly violated in the past. I agree with him about the past but disagree with him about rejecting the principle. In fact, if we reject the principle, we no longer have a basis for saying that the past behavior he laments was wrong.
Well, I had something else to say after all. Surprise. But really, I think this is it.
Finally, let me close by saying how much I appreciate disagreement and debate on the level “D” has offered. It’s all too rare. It stands in stark contrast to a depressing number of my critics, a typical one of whom emailed just today to share the benefit of his insight:
This is in reference to your UVA editorial on discrimination. First off, maybe your ancestors should be lynched and treated like animals for you to understand what comes out of your ignorant mouth. Thanks for the ebonics and grammar lesson, why dont you go chew your dirty tobacco and live in your trailer!
“WE indeed have a racist past, but that past is not “demeaning” to blacks. They, after all, have overcome, or even if you’re a pessimist have come a long way toward overcoming ” ARE YOU SERIOUS?? IGNORANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE!!! Since you seem so bold in your postings, you need to discuss this face-to-face with a group of black people. I am sure they will welcome you warmly!
