The Corner

The Election and Racial Preferences

You don’t just elect a president: You elect an administration. That is, in choosing the president you also choose his appointments for the executive branch, not to mention his nominees to the judiciary. And on racial-preference issues, a second Obama administration will be even worse than the first Obama administration — and that’s saying something.

The Obama administration has consistently promoted the use of racial preferences, sometimes directly and always indirectly. Directly, as when it supports university and even K–12 race-based policies, contracting preferences by the federal government, racial gerrymandering, federal workforce “diversity” efforts, and legislative provisions in Obamacare and Dodd-Frank (to name just the two highest-profile administration bills). Indirectly, as in nominating executive-branch officials like Eric Holder and Thomas Perez and judges like Goodwin Liu — and aggressively pushing the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement.

Through the latter, the federal government insists that the numbers come out right, even if it means that policemen and firefighters cannot be tested, students cannot be disciplined, that companies will hire criminals, that loans are made to the uncreditworthy, and that — I kid you not — whether pollution is acceptable depends on whether dangerous chemicals are spread about in a racially balanced way.

And I haven’t even mentioned the Supreme Court. Just imagine the decisions we will get if a third Obama appointee next term joins his first two (Elena Kagan and the “wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor), along with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Very, very scary.


The Latest