The Dec. 15 OpEdge of the Forth Worth Star Telegram, presents our first-week response to the
Texas A&M announcement alongside a very different opinion from the Ayn Rand Institute.
Like every other response to the Texas A&M opinion, the Ayn Rand Institute refuses to
deal with the fact that Texas higher education is under federal supervision for de-
Therefore the Ayn Rand Institute can present the following argument:
(1) “integration” is a worthy goal (2) “diversity” is not (3) Texas A&M is correct to abandon
affirmative action as a means to diversity. But what if (4) “de-segregation” was the original intent
of affirmative action at A&M and (5) “de-segregation” has not yet been completed? Then are we not
back to step one above: “integration”? The only thing standing between the Ayn Rand Institute and
the proper conclusion is consideration of a crucial fact: Texas higher education is not yet integrated.
Therefore, integration is the worthy reason why affirmative action should be continued.
The Ayn Rand Institute, like all other eyes of Texas, is looking chiefly at the
framework of “diversity” when the framework of “de-segregation” is more relevant. But the eyes of
Texas have been deliberately led in the direction of “diversity” by the magicians who crafted the
vanishing of affirmative action at Texas A&M.
Curiously enough, the much-watched debate
between campus president Gates and campus conservatives in the weeks leading up to the president’s
announcement served to solifiy an impression that “diversity” was the relevant framework for civil
rights policy at Texas A&M.
Let history reflect that the state’s initial reaction to
the Gates announcement was completely swept into the corner of diversity. No discussion of the
state’s obligations to de-segregation has yet taken place.
See the OpEdge page here.