In this week's Pope Center Clarion Call, I write about an essay by former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor in which she expresses some reservations about the Grutter decision in 2003 -- the decision that upheld the use of racial preferences by state universities.
She evidently is uncertain about the claimed "educational benefits" of "affirmative action." She ought to be. The evidence advanced by the "diversity" advocates was pathetically weak and the Court's majority swallowed it without the least bit of scrutiny. O'Connor doesn't know how right she is in suggesting that a future case should lead to reassessing Grutter.
But there is no reason why university officials should wait for another legal challenge. They are not obligated to engage in discriminatory admissions policies by Grutter and could reassess their policies at any time. If they chose to examine the matter carefully and objectively, I think the conclusion must be that racial preferences have little or no concrete benefits and work considerable harm.
Incidentally, the book in which O'Connor's essay appears seems to be lopsidedly pro-affirmative action. I don't yet have the book, but looking at the contents, I see nothing that looks the least bit skeptical. It's similar to the global warming agenda in that regard; the public must be led to believe that the question has been definitely settled.
