John Fund has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he accused the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, of taking a George Wallace approaching to civil rights. He argues her of standing in the way of America becoming a colorblind society by continuing to support "racial preferences" in spite of the fact that Michigan has passed a law, which makes them illegal. Money quote:
We've come a long way since 1964, when the late civil rights hero Hubert Humphrey stood on the Senate floor and told his colleagues that if the civil rights bill contained "any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there."
Four decades later, supporters of racial preferences imposed by government agencies are blocking legal efforts to establish the color-blind society that Martin Luther King envisioned. Dr. King's dream is alive in Michigan, and in other states, but a large number of people seem interested in stirring up a nightmare of massive resistance. Such efforts are likely not only to only fail, but to harden the public's opposition to divisive racial quotas.
The problem, which I have with John Fund and others, who argue against affirmative action, is that they go too far by arguing that its supporters are like segregationists or by refusing to acknowledge that we don't live in a colorblind society and that something has to be done in order to achieve that goal. John Fund's main point is that everything that needed to be done has been done and that minorities now need to be on their own for there are no longer any obstacles in becoming functional members of society, which they cannot overcome on their own. I am willing to accept to go along with those who argue that affirmative action isn't the answer and that it has divided America more than it has helped minority. However, those making that argument shouldn't stop their examination of the role of race in America at that point and content themselves with judging means, which have been used to redress wrong and to condemn their ineffectiveness. They should propose ways to achieve a colorblind society unless of course the point of their criticism of affirmative actions is that nothing should be done for action would always be more harmful than inaction. I disagree for I think that when a goal is as noble as achieving a colorblind society or rather a colorful society where having a different skin color or being of a different ethnic won't matter society must do everything that it can to achieve it.