"After an initial burst of indignation at the Supreme Court for taking on the unpleasant task of informing college admissions offices that race discrimination is unconstitutional, the media's main focus quickly shifted to their favorite topic: blaming white men.
"True, it was going to be difficult to turn a case finally ending 50 years of discrimination against whites into a story about how whites are oppressing blacks, but you don't know our media. The fact that the plaintiffs in this case were Asian didn't even slow them down.
"Within hours, everybody was talking about "legacies." The children of alumni are apparently the ne plus ultra of whiteness. The New York Times called them "white, wealthy and well-connected." And that's how "legacy" entered the vocabulary as an epithet for white men, joining "frat boys," "rich," "privileged," "Chads" and "lacrosse players."
"Unfortunately, much like #BlackLivesMatter, this latest orgy of hatred for whites is going to end up hurting black people the most.
"We have been assured that preferences for the children of alumni are exactly like racial preferences for blacks and Hispanics -- except given to whites. Thus, Kenny Xu, one of the plaintiffs in the affirmative action case, sneered that preferences for legacies "disproportionately privilege white applicants." (These aren't your allies, white people.)
"Then, days after the decision was announced, race activists filed a complaint against Harvard for giving preference to the children of alumni, saying that legacy admissions have "nothing to do with an applicant's merit" and were "an unfair and unearned benefit.' " . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment