No Equal Protection for Whites?


Sometime this month, perhaps before this column is
published, the Supreme Court will rule on the University
of Michigan`s racial quotas. Both in

law school
and

undergraduate admissions,
the university
intentionally discriminates against white applicants in
favor of “preferred minorities.”

It is obvious that the university`s policy violates
equality before the law and the Constitution`s equal
protection clause.

For three decades the constitutional issue has been
finessed. Initially, Americans were reassured that

racial quotas were to be temporary
and would be
phased out before they could endanger equal rights for
whites. However, temporary expedients have a way of
becoming

permanent
. Today racial quotas are required in order
to avoid federal civil rights lawsuits in behalf of
“preferred minorities.”

As practically every university in the country uses
one scheme or another to discriminate in favor of
“preferred minorities,” the Michigan case will determine
whether “preferred minorities” are admitted on the basis
of merit or on the privilege of skin color.

Pray I am wrong, but the best that those who believe
in equal protection can hope for is that the Court will
speak out of

both sides
of its mouth, as it did in the

1978 Bakke
case. Alan Bakke was denied admission to
medical school at the University of California in order
to create room for a less qualified “preferred
minority.”
The Court ruled against quotas but for
“diversity.”

Diversity is a way of having quotas without the
Supreme Court`s sanctioning the death of the equal
protection clause. Whites would be denied equal
protection in practice with regard to university
admission, but they would still have equal protection in
theory. This would provide whites some protection from
becoming full-fledged second class citizens in law. If
whites lose equal protection, they will be subject to
new classes of laws, such as

“hate crimes,”
that would apply

only
to
the behavior of whites.

A worse outcome is possible. The Court could rule
that after three decades “preferred minorities” now have

squatters` rights
in racial privilege. When the
controversial

Roe v. Wade

abortion ruling came back before the Court in 1992,
a plurality

ruled
that despite the

absence
of a legal or constitutional basis for the
pro-abortion decision, the passage of time had given
women squatters` rights to abortions that the Court
would not take away.

An even worse ruling might be in the making. In the
May 30 issue of Business Week, Stan Crock, a
correspondent in the magazine`s Washington bureau,
argues that white Americans might not be protected by
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment,
he says, was adopted in 1868 and “was intended to
make sure that newly freed slaves were not denied the
equal protection of the law.”
The intended
beneficiaries of the amendment were clear, he says,
“and they didn`t have white skin.”

[Business Week,

The Real Affirmative-Action Problem
 
By Stan
Crock ]

On the basis of a

New Deal ruling
by

Justice Harlan Fiske Stone,
Mr. Crock goes on to
argue that “strict scrutiny” applies only to laws
that might involve “prejudice against discrete and
insular minorities.”
Mr. Crock concludes that
“minorities—not whites—should be the beneficiaries of
both the 14th Amendment and the notion of `strict
scrutiny` of racially tinged laws.”

Do you think a Business Week correspondent
[Send

Stan Crock
email.] came to these convoluted legal
arguments on his own? To a former old Washington hand
who spent a quarter century “inside the beltway” in
government, journalism and think tanks, Mr. Crock`s
argument smells like one planted by a clerk to a Supreme
Court justice, whose agenda is to strip white Americans
of equal protection in order to dump our

merit-based system
into the trash bin of history and
to replace it with equal outcomes dictated by the
judiciary.

You have to wonder how far along this road we are
when Business Week magazine publishes an article
that says white Americans have less constitutional
protection than “preferred minorities.” Isn`t this the
triumph of the Harvard philosopher,

John Rawls
, who argued that the only policies that
can be justified

are those
that favor the least well-off?

The outcome of the civil rights revolution is the
creation of differential rights. In place of the old
feudal privileges based on class, the

new feudalism
is based on skin color.

There is nothing to prevent a legally privileged
group from dispossessing

second class citizens
—especially when immigration is
turning the “preferred minority” into a

“preferred majority.”
If Mr. Crock`s article is
based on a Supreme Court leak, white Americans have no
future.

Paul
Craig Roberts is the author with Lawrence M. Stratton of


The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice
. Click

here
for Peter
Brimelow`s
Forbes
Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent
epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.