The US Supreme Court later this year will rule on the legality of the University of Michigan’s admissions policy. Out of the 105 points it requires for admission, the school awards applicants 20 points simply for being black, Hispanic or American Indian — while awarding just 12 points for a perfect SAT score. Lats month, Hillary Clinton recently revealed the corrupt ideas on which this blatantly racist policy rests.
Using the context of Martin Luther King Day to announce that she will join other senators in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the school’s policy, Clinton said:
“We are reminded once again by the events of the last year that there are those who don’t understand Dr. King’s dream and legacy. Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character? If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”
What Clinton perpetrates here is a complete misrepresentation of King’s words from his “I Have a Dream” speech, words that championed individualism — a man’s achievements and merits based on his personal choices and actions. When King said he dreamed that his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” he clearly made the distinction that race and character are wholly separate standards by which individuals should be judged. By equating race with character, however, Clinton seeks to make these two opposite standards indistinguishable.
In reality, character equals the sum of actions an individual chose to take based on specific ideas and principles. Race is simply the genetic make up of an individual’s physical being, a factor over which none of us has any choice. It is not an idea, principle or action, but instead constitutes our given physical identity. Thus, race has no direct bearing on the ideas an individual adopts or the actions he chooses to take. By saying race makes up part of our character, however, Clinton believes racial genetics determine an individual’s ideas and actions.
At the height of its reign of terror against black Americans, the Ku Klux Klan operated on the same premise. The organization lawlessly lynched men because its members believed a black individual’s actions, whether he merely eyed a white woman or raped her, for example, were caused by the (alleged) barbaric make up of his race. The KKK, like Clinton, believes a man’s racial genetics determine his character.
Clinton’s corruption of King’s words follows the path paved by the modern racists — the multiculturalists and “diversity” advocates — who, like the KKK, subordinate the individual to the racial group, and, consequently, push such policies as affirmative action. Rewarding people for their status as a racial “minority” and sacrificing individuals (of other races) who earn perfect SAT scores, these policies amount to figurative lynchings. Michigan University’s policy, for example, ultimately hangs an individual of comparatively higher academic achievement, that is, of actions such as discipline and hard work, at the alter of race, that is, of non-achievement.
“Diversity” advocates properly recognize individualism as a virtue — one that poses as their greatest barrier. Clinton’s primary purpose in corrupting King’s words is to destroy the concept. There is no better way to do so than, as she did, simultaneously appealing to and undercutting individualism’s foundation, by first saying, “we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin,” and then equating individual achievement with its opposite: racial non-achievement.
Once the new racists manipulate enough Americans into believing an individual’s ideas, actions and achievements are determined, at least in part, by their racial genetics, they have set the grounds to push and pass unopposed their race-based policies. When individualists contest these policies, properly arguing that it is irrational and unjust to judge and reward any man based on the irrelevancy of his race, “diversity” advocates can then simply point to their “fact” that race and character are one.
Under the pretense of combating racism, “diversity” advocates such as Clinton actually champion its basis, racial collectivism, and destroy individualism, its only antidote. But if racism is ever to be truly defeated, it is these intellectual corruptions that must be destroyed, and policies such as those found at Michigan University must be replaced strictly by the standard of individual achievement.
