PRESTOPUNDIT

As Eric Rasmusen points out the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unequal treament of individuals for racial purposes is far worse a violation of the spirit of the 14th amendment than even Plessy v. Ferguson:

What made me think of Plessy v. Ferguson, though, was the recent Grutter decision . Plessy v. Ferguson, people rarely note, was not a pro-South decision. It did require equal treatment of different races, and merely noted that segregation did not imply inequality. The difference in Brown v. Board of Education was that Brown said that separate treatment based on race was inherently demeaning and discriminatory, even if the treatments were equal. O'Connor's majority opinion is more pro-segregationist than even Plessy v. Ferguson. On O'Connor's logic, separate treatment is clearly allowed, for "diversity" purposes. But it does not have to be separate but equal. Blacks (or, if the argument is anything but special pleading, whites) could get extra scholarship money, or other special treatment. Bakke's conclusion that quotas are illegal does not fit her logic. If a university claims that having a separate all-black luxury dorm has an educational purpose, that should be allowed, by her logic. As should a separate, all-white university. Thus, the U. of Mississippi was in the right in 1962, in the current Supreme Court's view.

Think about that for a minute.