And opponents of Michigan's amendment would have to persuade the court that it is both impossible and impermissible for a majority-white electorate to believe, without malice, that colorblind policies are best for the entire polity. Persuading the court of this would be difficult, given that the court has held that a "core purpose of the 14th Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race."
If racial preferences are, as proponents of them invariably insist, created for "diversity" that benefits everyone, then Michigan's amendment banning preferences cannot constitute an invidious restructuring of the political process for the detriment of a minority. Hence opponents of Michigan's amendment are simultaneously arguing contradictory propositions: Racial preferences serve everyone by producing diversity in academia, but banning preferences is unconstitutional because they primarily benefit a minority.
"'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice," in Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." And so might the court's justices cry, come Tuesday.
George Will's email address is email@example.com.
- Most popular letters to the editor of 2013
- Doug Robinson: We are in the midst of an era...
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum wage
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before...
- My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it
- Michael Gerson: The gospel according to JC...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Government programs...
- John Hoffmire: Fighting increasing health...
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum... 62
- Letter: Doctors unite 40
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before... 38
- My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it 38
- Letter: Elected representatives 36
- Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not... 29
- Michael E. Kraft: Yes, Congress should... 21
- Letter: No limits 20