It was about an initiative to keep critical social institutions from addressing racial discrimination, by continuing to insure a meaningful presence of minorities in these institutions.
...by enacting policies that showed racial preferences. Are you arguing in favor of racial preferences?
Now the way is clear to have lily white universities, and minorities can no longer cry to the courts about it.
Of course they can. This case had nothing to do with legalizing inequality, it merely ensured that inequality cannot be part of public institutions. That's not unreasonable.
Now, how do you figure this is a blow for equality?
It's merely a question as to whether the law can allow for racial preferences in public institutions or not. I'm not in favor of them.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-04-23 06:40 pm (UTC)...by enacting policies that showed racial preferences. Are you arguing in favor of racial preferences?
Now the way is clear to have lily white universities, and minorities can no longer cry to the courts about it.
Of course they can. This case had nothing to do with legalizing inequality, it merely ensured that inequality cannot be part of public institutions. That's not unreasonable.
Now, how do you figure this is a blow for equality?
It's merely a question as to whether the law can allow for racial preferences in public institutions or not. I'm not in favor of them.