A few days ago Bench Memos noted apropos of the Parents v Seattle decision that “all justices agree that race-conscious measures are appropriate as a remedy for past discrimination.”

But my understanding is that the court has decided through several decisions that race-conscious measures are not a remedy for past discrimination, except in very specific cases where deliberate discrimination can be proved. The idea that one could make up for discrimination against previous generations by discriminating against present day young people who had nothing to do with that did not sit well with many and they made a good case against it. In general, we don’t believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited unto the ninth and tenth generation.

The new rationale for general affirmative action measures is diversity, and the supposed social and educational benefits coming from that. Of course, if we look at the rhetoric of race activists, we will probably see an idea of affirmative action as being some kind of remedy for past discrimination. For example, Senator Charles Schumer’s response to criticism of the Grutter decision was to demand, ”How can overcoming racial discrimination be seen as discrimination against white people?” For him the goal was to end alleged racial discrimination, even though the decision actually held that racial preferences could not be justified on that count. This would suggest that even supporters of affirmative action don’t really believe the diversity rationale but are using it to advance their agenda of enforced racial proportionality in every area of the culture.