"Affirmative Action" Promoters Essentially Are Saying that the Remedy For Racism is More Racism

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down so-called "affirmative action" in college admissions, heightening focus upon the type of racism known as so-called "affirmative action."

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College struck down reverse racism in admissions frameworks at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, setting broad precedent that could alter such programs nationwide.

Because it defines by race, divides by race, gives unfair advantage due to race, and effectively penalizes based upon race, so-called "affirmative action," is the epitome of racism.

Reverse racism is just that — racism.

As such, it violates the U.S. Constitution as well as federal law and ordinary standards of basic decency.

Advocates of so-called "affirmative action" tend to rest their arguments, or perhaps vague innuendo, on the notion that broad reverse racism helps counteract past injustice, however blurred or disconnected the two might be.

The theory seems to be that reverse racism, including reverse racism against wholly innocent parties unconnected to any past wrongdoing, is necessary to counterbalance racism that occurred in some places, among some subset of people, nearly two centuries ago, or, to much lesser extents, since then.

In other words, "affirmative action" proponents, in reality, are arguing that the remedy for racism is more racism. Or, perhaps more accurately, they imply that the remedy for limited spheres of racism, involving subsets of persons, many years ago, is to have broader racism today against broader numbers of wholly innocent parties.

Ironically, the reverse racism is, indeed, directed with a much broader scope than the original historical racism used to justify it.

For example, only some portions of the United States, two centuries ago, practiced slavery, with many Whites opposing it, and ongoing efforts to roll it back. In the bloodiest military conflict in U.S. history, many thousands of Whites laid down their lives to end slavery.

Yet, in the name of addressing slavery two centuries ago, or varying degrees of racism in limited locations since, so-called "affirmative action" would discriminate against, or even undermine, broad numbers of Whites today, even if they, themselves, have never been associated with racism, or even if their ancestral families saw men go to their deaths to fight against it.

Over time, the formula has become that, since a subset of some members of a racial group engaged in racism years ago, in finite measures, all members of that racial group should be discriminated against on racial grounds today.

In other words, a kind of broad-brushed scapegoating factionalism is brought to bear, to promote one set of factions against another, reminiscent of Hitler trying to scapegoat all Jews.

Particularly telling is the fact that so-called "affirmative action" has morphed and been distorted over time.

At the beginning, the national idea was fairness, that all persons be treated equally, regardless of race, looking instead to their character, fitness, qualifications, abilities, ideas and hard work.

But then so-called "affirmative action" reverse racism started off, ironically by spouting principals of equality to cautiously promote reverse racism in the name of equal opportunity. Then the reverse racism snowballed down a "slippery slope" towards brazen self-seeking opportunism and factionalism.

In the end, "affirmative action" reverse racism has ended up being, technically, more racist than the racism it originally claimed to be fighting against.

It started out that the standard was supposed to be equal opportunity, that a person be assessed according to actual ability, credentials and qualities, rather than by race.

Then there was the cautious first step to use equal opportunity to actually promote racism, by introducing, or perhaps fantasizing, that there might be, psychologically, such a thing as unconscious racism. Under the theory of unconscious racism, when two candidates were equally qualified, the ethnic minority candidate might not be equally treated, even though he or she was equally qualified.

So the argument was that, when a white candidate and black candidate were equally qualified, there should be racially motivated preference for the Black, to counteract the theoretical possibility of racism, even no actual basis in reality existed to suggest such a thing, and certainly even if no such reality was actually proven.

Then the argument became that persons who were unqualified should be given preference, over and above persons who were better qualified, or that they be given a weighted partial preference. That was to support the fantasized, theoretical notion that, it somehow could be asserted with certainty that they, hypothetically, would have been qualified had they started out with more advantages several years earlier in life.

Later the reverse racism became even more factionalistic, to simply define persons by racial groups, to get upset that some racial groups had less than others, and to simply convey opportunities and things of value to persons for no other reason than that they were in a particular faction, a particular racial group.

That variety of overt racism now seems to have expanded, in some cases, into open, ugly animosity, to attack all members of a particular racial group, such as Whites, simply for being Whites.

So the dubious notion of so-called "affirmative action" reverse racism has itself morphed and spiraled down, with the label being applied to increasingly unlawful, immoral frameworks that have become more and more aggressive in their own racism.

So-called "affirmative action" is, of course, neither. It is neither affirmative, nor is it action, in so far that it is not action in favor of broader racial harmony or broader societal prosperity.

Instead, so-called "affirmative action" is the notion that the supposed remedy for racism is more racism. And reverse racism, which is what so-called "affirmative action" is, is just that — racism.

Interestingly enough, under at least one major religious denomination, so-called "affirmative action" would have to deemed sinful. That denomination has advanced, or reemphasized, the notion that racism is a sin. As a result, so-called "affirmative action" is a sin, since so-called "affirmative action" is, itself, intrinsically racist.

[please be sure to consider clicking the support button, to support this web project and related efforts]

Key Words: Race, Racism, Reverse Racism, Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, So-Called Affirmative Action, College Admissions, Universities

Cartoon Rendition of Persons of Different Races and Ethnicities, adapted from image at commerce.gov