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-segregation.
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 solidify 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.
Texas Civil Rights Review 