Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on How Not to Fix Racial Preferences in College Admissions

The recent Sixth Circuit Court ruling overturning Michigan's ban on racial preferences in college admissions deserves a place of honor in the top-ten list of judicial sophistries, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her morning column in the Washington Examiner. But that shows that using courts to create color-blind campuses is neither workable nor desirable. She notes:

The best among bad options might be full-disclosure laws requiring universities that receive federal funding to reveal what admissions standards they use for which group -- minorities, alumni, athletes, donors -- along with their graduation rates. This will expose any admissions double standard whether toward minorities or rich white legacies, causing elite universities to risk their reputational appeal.

Go here for the whole thing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "It violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because it leaves minorities who want racial preferences in admissions no option but to mount a counter-referendum."

    This was written by supposedly educated adults.
    How about those who, oh, want to rob banks? Does A14 guarantee their wishes?

  • Doctor Whom||

    So people who want to write racial preferences into law are going to have a harder time doing so? Silly me, I thought that that was the whole point of equal protection of the laws.

  • Rick Santorum||

    This was written by supposedly educated adults.

    They've been educated by the Marxists and communist sympathizers who infiltrated the universities back during the Cold War. They aren't interested in fairness or equality. That line? A ruse. A bait-and-switch. They've always been interested in overthrowing the West--and with it, capitalism.

    It's why the Ivy League elite have changed the definition of racism from "being a dick to someone with a different skin tone" to:

    A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.

    By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination.

    Libertarians, if you want your ideology to survive, you need to push back against progressivism.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement