Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
It has been conventional wisdom since Brown v. Board of Education — handed down in 1954 — that a correlation exists between racially integrated schools and the educational quality that is provided to students attending such schools. More specifically, there seems to be an unspoken view that black schools are, by definition, inferior institutions, and that black students can only learn if they are sitting next to whites in school.
At the higher education level, the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2003, that racial and ethnic “diversity” was so compelling that the use of race by universities was constitutional, despite the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and notwithstanding the command of the 1964 Civil Rights Act against discrimination on the basis of race. Underlying the court’s decision in the Gratz and Grutter cases of 2003 was the view that “diversity” — the twin policy sister of “racial integration” — improved the quality of education for all concerned.
In the face of inadequate evidence to support the contention that “diversity equals excellence,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has often commented on the lack of “diversity” at historically black colleges and universities, for example, despite the fact that many such institutions continue to produce some of our nation’s most celebrated leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr.
You can read the rest of this article on the Manhattan Web site at: www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2007/07/beware_of_elites_bearing_racia.html.



Comments from Examiner Readers
10:53 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "Pietro S. Nivola: Uncle Sam suffering from attention deficit disorder"
Report as inappropriate
4:57 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "Sunlight study sees 10 ways to open the House"
Report as inappropriate
Mr. Mirth Alert said:
Mr. Nivola should thank the Lord that he's allowed to put his ignorance on public display, for he knows little about division of labor & nothing about attention deficit disorder. Division of labor was a mfr.'ing scheme, to produce more for less, i.e., increase profit. Despite Mr. Mellon's early 20th-century claim that good govt. is good business, govt. neither mfrs. nor turns a profit. & This notion of doing a little of everything need not be explained by some questionable medical diagnosis but rather by the very dictum that got the guy who appointed all the policy makers elected: "I can please all of the people all of the time." Overstretched govt. is the product of deliberate planning, not some behavioral miscue.
291 agree | 217 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Sorry, but this Open House Project commentary reads like an Onion parody column: who @the Sunlight Fdn. sincerely believes that Congress has any interest in empowering the public? The gulf betw. haves & have-nots widens a little more each day, & as "haves" Congress sure as shootin' has nothing to gain by reducing that gulf. Never mind all this techno nonsense, Sunlight Fdn.: arrest members of Congress & detain them for 48 hr; if for no reason other than to shake it outta its "have" stupor.
297 agree | 308 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree