As you might gather from the title of this post, I’ve written about the separation of race and state a number of times — including but not limited to I, II, III, and IV. (For an example of one of many discussing that issue not included in the previous list, see More Separation of Race & State, which asks: “If the unintended effect of aiding religious schools is not deemed to violate the principle of religious neutrality, how can policies that, without intent, disadvantage blacks more than whites (or Hispanics more than Asians, etc.) violate a standard of racial neutrality?”)
Now I’ve gone and done it again: “Race, Religion and Liberal Ideology,” on Minding The Campus today.
Liberals, I point out, have been complaining even louder than usual this spring about the damage being done by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. What is most significant, however, but unappreciated about the two recent controversial decisions that have especially provoked their ire, Schuette v. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, Integration And Immigration Rights And Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and Town of Greece v. Galloway, is not the majority opinions but the striking similarity of the liberal dissents in those two cases, even though the cases involved unrelated legal issues. That similarity reveals the degree to which “diversity” has become the central dogma of contemporary liberal ideology, even where race is not at issue.
I encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s not very long.
