Op-Ed: The Thought Process That Ended Affirmative Action Could Strengthen Our Nation and Faith
Almost everyone in America has probably heard that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions at Harvard and one of my alma maters, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In doing so, the six conservative justices declared that race cannot be a factor in admission to colleges. Ironically, these affirmative action plans so favored the black population that they discriminated against other more qualified applicants.
By the same token, if you are like most folks who have heard about the decision, you have already made up your mind as to whether this is one of the best rulings to come out of the Supreme Court or that it effectively hammers another nail in the coffin of anti-discrimination in America. The truth is that your viewpoint of the righteousness of the SCOTUS declaration is derived from the main source of philosophical dichotomies now dividing our nation.
As it applies to the Supreme Court, the difference can be summed up in that the six conservative justices mostly fall under what would be termed the “originalist” category. This point of view simply holds that the text of our Constitution is fixed and that it should be binding as it is written.
On the other hand, the three liberal justices hold to the viewpoint that our Constitution is a “living, breathing document” and that its interpretation can and should evolve with society. In other words, the actual text should be viewed in light of the changes in culture over a period of time.
By way of example, Justice Clarence Thomas, who is the leading proponent of originalism on the present court as well as a champion of common sense and natural law, wrote in his concurring opinion that the affirmative action decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”
You would think that this thought pattern would make sense to those concerned about racial inequality. However, because of the perverted view that the Constitution should change over time, the victimized cries of the left have been raised above the din of reality.
In contrast to Thomas, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all” and opined in her dissenting opinion in the UNC case that “the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”
It should not take too long to see the fallacy of this viewpoint. Making murder against the law does not necessarily make murder go away in society, either. It was Dr. Martin Luther King who so eloquently made this counterpoint when he said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.”
So, in the final analysis, the six justices in the majority got it right because their high view of the language of our Constitution is the correct one. You cannot work against discrimination against one minority by discriminating against at least two other racial groups in the process.
Interestingly, President Joe Biden wanted to add his two cents and was quick to hold a news conference condemning the court for its ruling. When asked by a reporter if this is a “rogue court,” the president responded that “this is not a normal court.”
For once, I agree with Mr. Biden. In comparison with what we have seen in past courts, the present conservative majority certainly is not normal, and for that the American people ought to get down on their knees and thank God.
At Southern Evangelical Seminary, we hold the Constitution of the United States in high regard and are firmly planted in the realm of originalism. We hold a similar position regarding the Bible as God’s holy, inerrant and infallible Word. Sadly, this position sometimes divides those of us who call ourselves Christians.
In the end, the Constitution is to our American way of life as the Bible is to our spiritual lives as Christians. To the extent that these two foundational documents are viewed as unchanging and binding as they were written, our nation and our faith will be all the stronger for it.
Maybe this simple thought process could make all the difference in bringing our nation back to its historical roots and Christianity back to its foundation of righteousness.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
