It’s still racism, no matter which race get’s the benefit.

The Supreme Court is once again addressing institutionalized racism in American schools.

The argument is about whether it’s legal to use a person’s skin color to determine whether or not they can attend a particular public school. (Of course, cialis canada health the color in question is “white.” If the color was “black,” we wouldn’t be having this discussion because no one could deny it was racist.)

One of the people arguing that race shouldn’t be a deciding factor is Roger Clegg, president and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity. He says:

“Brown vs. Board of Education was about the right of individuals not to be discriminated against because of their skin color, and that is exactly what is at stake in this case.”

Shockingly enough, Ted Shaw, director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund takes afront. He says:

“They now claim they are the inheritors of Martin Luther King Jr.‘s dream of a country in which little children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin. He would be appalled by how his words are being used,” Shaw said.

If Dr. King didn’t mean them, then he shouldn’t have said them.

He could have said…”I have a dream…that my children will get special preference over the children of other races in compensation for all the opportunities they’ve been denied over the years.” But he didn’t. He said,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Either we take Dr. King at his word or we don’t. Either we dole out preferences based on race or we don’t. Trying to address racism by reversing it will never work. As I learned in my racially-mixed elementary school: two wrongs, don’t make a right.

Add comment December 4th, 2006