The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> JUSTICE CENTRAL br> Re: George Neumayr's O'Connor's Great Con: /p>

Gosh! Just when I figured that Rep. Dick Gephardt's (D-Pandering) bizarre threat that, if elected president, he'd overrule any Supreme Court decision he didn't like by Executive Order made him a natural lock for this week's EOTW award, I happened upon George Neumayr's outstanding article O'Connor's Great Con.

p>There can be no doubt about it. This week's EOTW award winner has to be USSC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, as Mr. Neumayr so succinctly put it, "casting about for a rationale to justify bald racial discrimination in the academic world, ... [invented] a new 'mission' for universities." br> -- Samuel Keck br> Indian Wells, CA /p>

Good article, right on target.

May I leave aside for the moment the mission redefinition from teaching to "diversity"?

The courts position seems to take for granted that diversity is a good thing. Is there any evidence supporting this notion? How does the goodness of diversity manifest itself? Is diversity equally good for all concerned, or is it only good for some?

What if it were good for part of the (school) population and bad for part? Is there a way to calculate the balance? (Oh, wait. That might begin to look like a point system.) Diversity may be good for the minority person admitted to further that goal, but it is bad for the non-minority person excluded as a result.

topics:
Education, Health Care, Business, Sports, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO