SamSaid!

READING

     The other day, we had the pleasure of baby sitting our 5 year old granddaughter. Pretty good duty. She is right at the point of learning how to use a pencil, learning about letters and numbers, and starting to read. When you think about it, the process of learning to read is astounding. Here is a young mind that can translate marks on a piece of paper into a grouping called “words” and then visualize objects, names, persons, feelings etc. by putting some of these “words” together. Amazing.

     I went through 12 grades in the Public School system. Everyone knew how to read and write. Sure, some better than others, but it was inconceivable that anyone in our classes would flunk because they couldn't read or write. Yet we now have huge percentages of kids in the secondary schools who can't do either. And lot of them are blacks. Personally, I don't think the big issue for black leaders is an extra 20 points to get into the Michigan Law School. Not while 30-40% of kids in some high schools can't even read or write. Sad commentary on what has become of our public school system  –  and the priorities of so-called leaders.

     Speaking of reading, in retirement years there is a lot of opportunity to read, and I enjoy it. Unfortunately, my reading span is about 20 minutes before running into an unplanned nap. But I can work my way thru an occasional best seller, the local newspaper, Sports Illusttrated, Time, an occasional issue of the Economist and the Wall Street Journal. I don't really devour the financial data in the WSJ but I am convinced that it has the best editorial page in the USA. An excellent example is “If Saddam Survives” which appeared in this morning's Journal (1/27). It employs the simplest of logic in re Iraq, i.e., “What if we do” and “What if we don't”. Nowadays we are hearing more an more from the anti-war folks with scant attention to the opposite side of the coin. What are the consequences if Saddam gets off the hook?  Every thoughful American should read the aforementioned editorial before locking into a position.  It's worth 5 minutes of anyone's time.

AFFIRMATIVE DISSENT

     I have never been a great fan of affirmative action, which is really a code word to disguise preferential treatment and quotas. Equal opportunity is one thing, and most folks don't argue against that. But proponents of diversity want no parts of equal opportunity  –  they want guaranteed results. So-o-o, they find ways to tilt the playing field.

     Over the past 10 years or so, the courts have been increasingly unsympathetic to racial, ethnic, or gender preferences since the US Constitution simply doesn't privide for that kind of disparate treatment. But the social architects keep trying to twist the Constitution around to supporting their views. Granted, slavery was despicable  — and the Civil War wasn't just a fraternal spat. But the face of our society has changed dramatically since the Civit Rights Act was passed almost 40 year ago. If EVER there was a justification for affirmative action  those days are gone. Now, what had been a  policy matter has been transformed into a legally supported demand for preferential treatment. The supporters casually ignore the fact that for each person receiving preferential treatment, another is denied fair treatment.

      This spring the US Supreme Court will rule on a case that is right on point. In determining admission to the Univ of Michigan Law School, blacks, hispanics and indians are given an extra 20 points in a scoring system based on points.  The justification offered by the Michigan Law School is that achieving diversity is desireable and the bonus points are warranted. They don't deny that they have discriminated against the better qualified applicants.  Translation  –  more qualified applicants are rejected so that less qualified “diversity” candidates may be accepted. Two outstandingly qualified women have contested their denial by the Law School. And the Law School doesn't deny their superior qualifications. Currently, there are conflicting affirmative action decisions in the Circuit Courts, so the Supremes can't duck this one. Do they bow to political and social pressure, or do they rule on the Constitution?

     I have no use for this diversity hogwash. In an academic environment we should encourage excellence and achievement. Affirmative action is an effort to legitimatize a special form of discrimination. It deserves to be dumped into a trash can, and I hope the Supremes pull the plug this June.