Rodent Regatta

So, you’re relieved that the Supreme Court finally ”clarified” the University of Michigan’s admissions policy. You think it’s all settled. Leave it to Craig Cantoni to show just how stupid this ruling is, and how it will keep on giving!

An Italian cheers and boos the Supreme Court decision

By Craig J. Cantoni

(For Internet publication)

As expected, the political institution of the U.S. Supreme Court played politics and split the baby with its Michigan affirmative action decision. It created an intellectual mishmash by saying that racial quotas are bad but that it is good to consider race in admissions because diversity is good. The decision will result in universities setting aside a number of slots for applicants of selected races who would not otherwise qualify for the slots. Only a sharp political, er, judicial, mind can understand the difference between setting aside slots and a quota system.

Mishmash or not, this Italian is cheering the decision. Why? Because Italians comprise about six percent of the U.S. population but only about three percent of the student body of Ivy League universities. Thus, the decision will mean that Italians will finally get racial parity and be able to bring their unique experiences and perspectives to elite campuses.

In particular, the decision will mean that my 12-year-old son will have a better chance of getting into an Ivy League school, even if his academic record and test scores do not warrant it. Chances are, he will be the first Cantoni to attend an Ivy League school since my poor, uneducated grandparents immigrated to this country. I can picture him sitting in math class at Princeton, sharing his views about spaghetti with Bolognese sauce, the Godfather movies and the Sopranos television series.

What’s that? You say that it won’t work that way? You say that diversity does not include Italians or Greeks or Bosnians or Poles or Iranians or Tongans or scores of other racial and ethnic groups that are in the minority in America? You say that it also does not include Asians and Jews, because they get into prestigious universities on their own merit?

You say that diversity is really code talk for giving blacks and Hispanics preferences over my son, solely because of the color of their skin and their surname, even if they come from a wealthier, more advantaged family? You say that three generations of getting a Cantoni to the point where he might be able to attend an Ivy League school could be thwarted by a first-generation Mexican jumping the line?

Now I’m really confused. My lack of an Ivy League education is showing. I can understand that blacks are a distinct race—what used to be called the Negro race before the word ”Negro” became politically incorrect—and that they still suffer from the horrible legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, misguided welfare programs and government paternalism. But Hispanics are not a distinct race and have not suffered any more discrimination than other ethnic immigrant groups. I also thought that the label ”Hispanic” incorrectly lumps together over 30 nationalities, races and ethinic groups that have nothing in common but language.

Does the Supreme Court decision mean that universities are going make sure that they have the right proportion of Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Panamanians, Hondurans, Haitians, Spaniards and others? Will they make a distinction in the interest of diversity between a Mexican who has 100 percent Chiapa Indian blood and a Mexican who is a descendant of Spanish aristocracy? Or will they lump all of these diverse groups together in the name of diversity and pretend that they all think alike and have identical life experiences? After all, that is what the racial bean counters do with the more than 100 diverse ethnic groups and nationalities that make up what is clumsily called the ”non-Hispanic white” category.

Hey, wait a minute. Why are you calling me a racist for asking these questions? I’m not the one who believes in the government putting people into classifications so that politicians can pander to them and race mongers can monger over them. When I was a leader in equal rights in the 1970s and spearheaded affirmative action programs, affirmative action meant reaching out to blacks who had been denied opportunites in the past due to the color of their skin. It did not mean creating a false distinction between different white groups and arbitrarily reaching out to some members of the white race but not to others.

The Supreme Court decision is not about diversity. It is about reverse diversity. It is about arbitrarily lumping together widely diverse nationalities, ethnic groups and races for the purpose of favoring some and disfavoring others. This Italian says boo to that.
___

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and consultant. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com