The Washington Times editorializes about racially discriminatory provisions in the health care reform bill (see our previous coverage here):
“Not only are these provisions morally suspect, but they also fly in the face of recent (and wise) Supreme Court precedent. Even in the one recent case where the high court did allow limited racial preferences, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the court went to great lengths to note that ‘racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.’
…
“Other cases, such as Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), make clear that racial preferences by government are presumptively illegal. The Ricci case was the one in which the court ruled in favor of white firefighters who previously had been denied promotions that all agreed they had earned. Although not a direct constitutional challenge, it succinctly stated the guiding principle: ‘No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race.’”
The strangest part of all of this is people inherently understand that the provisions are discriminatory, even if the intent is to rectify the past or “fix” under-representation. Americans cannot invoke our country’s history of discrimination to justify such practices today. Government-mandated discrimination was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
These aren’t mere platitudes intended to downplay this country’s previous treatment of blacks. We will never come to terms with the past if we continue allowing our government to rationalize racial discrimination for whatever reason.
Comments on this entry are closed.