Google+
Close

Phi Beta Cons

The Right take on higher education.

Re: Racial Preferences on Trial



Text  



The key point in this dispute is whether you agree that there is a “moral imperative” (as University of Michigan law professor Richard Lempert maintains) to have different admissions standards for applicants from certain “underrepresented groups.” He argues that without affirmative action, “blacks are less likely to get high-paying jobs and careers that lead to judgeships.”

Let’s assume that he’s right about that. Why should the nation attempt to get a certain percentage of any group into any occupation? What’s the benefit of this groupthink mentality? Why believe that the United States is better off if we raise the percentage of black judges from whatever it would be in the absence of racial preferences to whatever we get with it?



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review