Revisiting Affirmative Action: The Starting Point is Still Not the Same for Everyone

Last week I wrote “The Supreme Court: What Happened to Conservatives and Freedom?” on my blog in which I lamented the Supreme Court decision overturnng Affirmative Action and its negative decrease in freedom for private universities.

Several people responded and asked me questions about my post. I decided to write a follow up piece to further explain my reasoning.

Racial discrimination (the use of race or skin color to distinguish people) has generally been practiced in the United States to benefit some (usually white people) at the expense of others (people of color, especially African Americans). Centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, exclusion from elections, gerrymandering, “separate but equal” practices in education, exclusion from benefits of the G.I. Bill, Redlining, etc. have had horrible consequences for people of color. People like me (I am a white male of the upper middle class) have an unfair advantage in the race of life. We don’t all start at the same place. Through no effort on my part, I began the race far ahead of many others.

Racial quotas and affirmative action were a different kind of racial discrimination. They used the race factor to partially offset the horrific consequences of historical racism in our country. They partially compensated for the sins of our past. They partially narrowed the gap at the starting point. They partially leveled the playing field. People of color have made significant gains in education, earnings, political life, etc., but I still have an unfair advantage.

The overturning of Affirmative Action by the Supreme Court last month essentially claimed that racial equality has already been achieved in our nation, that the starting point is the same for all people. This disregard for history and reality is blindness at best and probably contains some hypocrisy as well.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it” claimed Chief Justice writing for the majority position. He was arguing that we should be “color blind”. Nevertheless, he wasn’t being totally truthful, because federally funded military academies (such as West Point and the Air Force Academy) are permitted to continue considering race in admissions decisions. The reason? A vague statement that military academies may have “potentially distinct interests”. Military leaders argue that our nation needs officers who have educational experience in racially diverse settings. Business and political leaders make similar arguments.

My God is not “color blind”. Neither should we be “color blind”. We should acknowledge how racial distinctions have been used in the past to widen the gap. Let us acknowledge racial distinctions now to narrow that gap. The soul-searching question for me, and for those like me, is whether we want to let go of our unfair advantages.

The Supreme Court: What Happened to Conservatives and Freedom?

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling that essentially overturned Affirmative Action. Universities and colleges, both public and private, can no longer use race as a criterion for admission purposes. In the last 24 hours, much has been said and written in favor and against the decision. Nevertheless, there has not been much commentary regarding the ruling and its relationship to freedom. This is somewhat strange because it was the six conservative justices who united to overturn Affirmative Action. Conservatives claim to enhance freedom. They usually rail against the intromission of big government in the affairs of its citizens. They have violated their convictions with this decision.

During my teaching career, I have taught at various institutions of higher education. Two of those schools are Wheaton College and Whitworth University. Both are private schools, and both believe that greater diversity (economic, racial, and social) in their student body and faculty leads to better education. (Wheaton College had strong abolition values at its beginning and has included African American students since the mid nineteenth century.) Now, both schools are formally prohibited from seeking racial diversity on their campuses. Their institutional freedom has been curtailed. The ruling unnecessarily reduces freedom. On this particular aspect of institutional freedom of action, most people agree that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court got it wrong.

Memorial Day and our Unjust Wars: Let’s be Honest

This might not be a popular blog, but I submit it to your conscience. This past weekend, our country celebrated the national holiday of Memorial Day in which we honor those soldiers who gave their lives in our nation’s wars. Republicans and Democrats generally agree regarding the honoring of veterans, but both sides are failing the integrity test. Let me explain.

Our country, like most nations around the world, affirms that we practice Just War Theory (JWT). We claim that we will not go to war unless the basic four criteria of JWT are met (just cause, just intent, last resort, legitimate authorization). We also affirm that we will wage war according to JWT principles, like civilian immunity. What should we do when we fail to meet JWT conditions? An honest analysis shows that most of our wars have not been just. (See the book “The Wars of America: Christian Views”, edited by Ronald Wells, for such an analysis of each of our major wars). Our typical response is to slide down the slippery slope of excuses, alibis, or rationalizations. We avoid talking about our moral failures or we try to change the rules in midstream.

Let´s take the war in Iraq as an example. We spent twenty years, the lives of thousands of soldiers, over 100,000 civilian Iraqi deaths, and $1.7 trillion dollars for a war that was not justified. Allegedly, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had a close relationship with al-Qaeda. He was a terrible tyrant, but no weapons of mass destruction were ever found nor evidence of communication with al-Qaeda. The war was never authorized, neither by the U.S. Congress nor by the United Nations. The highly respected Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, made the case for war at the UN Security Council. The UN correctly did not approve the request, citing the lack of credible evidence. Being a man of integrity, General Powell later acknowledged his deep regret for having been used as an instrument to disseminate false information that led to a war with over 100,000 deaths, mostly civilians.

How should we remember unjust wars? Only a cheap, false patriotism would celebrate these wars. We would do well to learn from the ancient Israelites who confessed their sins on their annual Day of Atonement. We must learn to hold accountable our officials who gloss over their actions as “good intentions”. Good intentions are not enough. If Just War Theory is to be accepted as a valid national policy, we the people need to demand that our leaders do not take us into deadly wars that are not justified. My faith tradition teaches that if we deny our sins, we are liars and we deceive themselves. But if we confess our sins, we can find forgiveness. Unjust war involves the cheapening of human life. Our society has the highest gun violence in the world which points to a similar devaluing of lives. Let’s acknowledge our mistakes and find healing for our nation.

Further reading: “When War is Unjust” by John Howard Yoder and “Terrorism and the War in Iraq” that I wrote together with Rene Padilla.

Nobody is Above the Law: Neither Donald Trump nor Hunter Biden

According to my understanding, we are all equal in the sight of God. As a consequence, we should be equal in the sight of the law. No one is above the law. Neither fame nor fortune should enable people to escape from paying for their crimes. It is healthy and necessary for societies to implement a justice that includes restitution and restoration.

What does that mean for the contemporary U.S. political scene? Most Democrats want former president Trump to be held accountable for his actions. And many Republicans want Hunter Biden, son of the current president, to be held responsible for his actions. The alleged crimes are not comparable. Trump has been accused of tax evasion in New York, vote tampering in Georgia, the unlawful keeping of national security documents in Mar-a-Lago, leading the treasonous January 6 insurrection, obstruction of justice, etc., whereas Hunter Biden has been accused of tax evasion and taking advantage of his father’s influence to obtain a highly paid consulting job in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the principle is the same, nobody should get special treatment. If you commit a crime, you need to pay.

Charges, indictments and a guilty verdict against “our guy” will help the “other side.” Conversely, a guilty verdict applied to the “other side’s guy” will probably help our cause. Nevertheless, we must rise above partisan interests. First and foremost, we must seek truth and justice. Yes, this issue is about Donald Trump and Hunter Biden, but it is also about us, our sense of justice, our integrity. Do we really want what is just, or do we want to win at all costs? We also are on trial. Are we innocent or guilty?

Public Policy and the “Separation of Church and State”? A Way Forward.

This is a thorny issue. On the one side are people who argue for a complete separation of church and state (the secular position). On the other side, many religious people claim that their Scriptures clearly distinguish right from wrong and that public laws should replicate this (the theocracy position). In my (not so humble) opinion, both sides have overstated their case. This is a tough issue, but there is a way forward.

People on the secular side argue for a complete “separation of church and state”. This phrase was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, but it does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Some from the secular position seem to have forgotten that many of the important laws in modern, secular societies (that they do agree with) had their origin in Scripture. Laws against murder, theft, and perjury historically came from the Ten Commandments. These usually came about via church/state alliances but have been reaffirmed by citizens in pluralistic societies today. On the other hand, other laws which were religiously motivated (example: the “dry laws” that prohibited sales of alcohol in the Bible Belt South or the “Blue laws” that prohibited supermarkets from opening on Sundays) have generally been dropped across the country.

People on the theocracy side believe that they know God’s will for society, based on their interpretation of their Scriptures and that should be applied to all (like the prohibition of murder). A contemporary example of this is the pro-life position of many religious people in which they affirm that the fetus’s life should be defended as of conception. Many pro-lifers had opposed the Roe v. Wade decision because it was made by members of the Supreme Court in 1973 and not by elected officials. Although Roe v. Wade has now been overturned federally, the legality of abortions is being decided at the state level.

Problems with both extreme positions should motivate us to a third way. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom to all people to choose their own religion…or no religion at all. I might not agree with their choices, but I defend their freedom to choose. Their religious choices probably influence them on a wide array of issues, including public policies. That is fine and appropriate. Freedom of conscience means that people can arrive at their opinions in the way that they prefer. Nevertheless, if they want to codify their opinions into law, there is the next step which is quite difficult. In democracies, they must persuade a majority of their fellow citizens of the appropriateness of their policies (at a district, state, or national level).

This challenge can be seen in what happened in Kansas. With Roe v Wade being overturned, people in Kansas voted on the legality/illegality of abortions in their state. Although Kansas is a “ruby red” state which traditionally votes Republican, 59% voted to keep abortions legal. The pro-lifers failed to persuade a majority of Kansas inhabitants of the “rightness” of their position. Their position would be made stronger if they supported policies that would help pay maternity costs or provide child care or other programs that would be consistently “pro-life”.

What is the third way? People have the right to acquire their personal opinions in the way they prefer. But to codify these opinions into laws, they need to persuade a majority of their neighbors about the “justness” of their positions. They are free to use religious arguments, although non/religious arguments might be better. Democracy is messy. Sometimes your positions win, sometimes they don’t. That is why freedom of speech and elections are important.

Liz Cheney and the Future of the Republican Party – Three Scenarios

Liz Cheney has been the Congressional Representative from Wyoming since 2017. She grew up in a political family and her father, Dick Cheney, was Vice-President during the George Bush administration (2001-2009). She herself has been known as a conservative Republican on all major policy issues. She was a rising star and she chaired the House Republican Conference from 2019 to 2021 (the third most powerful position in the Republican congressional contingent). Then the January 6, 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol took place, promoted by former president Donald Trump. Based on her interpretation of the events and her moral integrity, she voted to impeach Trump. She has co-chaired the House January 6 Committee and believes the former president is a serious threat to our democracy. As a consequence, she is either viewed as a heroine in courage by many traditional, conservative Republicans or as a villain by many Trump supporters.

After losing the primary election last week in Wyoming for her House seat, she is considering running for president in 2024. She has affirmed that such a campaign would be, in part, an attempt to restore traditional core values to the Republican party and to make sure that Trump would not return to the White House. Does she have a future in the GOP? Before we look at the three main scenarios, let us look at the current situation.

Mid-Term Elections / A few months ago, it looked like the Republicans would pick up 20-40 seats to gain control of the House of Representatives and also win enough races to obtain a majority in the Senate. Given recent legislation victories in Congress and backlash to the Roe v. Wade reversal, it is now likely that Democrats will retain control of the Senate and lose far fewer seats in the House. Although many of Trump’s favored Senate candidates have won their primaries, some are underperforming in their campaigns for the general election (Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, Walker in Georgia, etc.)

Trump’s Legal Problems / The legal cases are mounting against Trump, his children, and his closest associates (the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago, the January 6 event, tax evasion in New York, the attempt to overturn the election in Georgia, etc.). It is likely that the former president will be indicted for some of his actions.

Here are the three most likely scenarios for Republicans leading up to the 2024 election.

Scenario 1 – It is possible that Trump survives his legal problems, launches his candidacy for the presidency, and obtains enough votes in the primary elections to win the Republican nomination. He is still the most powerful person among the Republican base. Nevertheless, his attraction for independent voters has plummeted. (Many Democratic pundits think he would be easily defeated in a general election.)

Scenario 2 – It is also possible that Trump decides not to run again or that his legal baggage becomes overwhelming. Republican voters would likely choose a candidate who has supported Trump but does not have his negative baggage. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is the most likely candidate, but other options include Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, or others.

Scenario 3 – There are other candidates who have distanced themselves (a little or a lot) from Trump, who are contemplating a run for the presidency. These include Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, John Kasich, and Larry Hogan, among others. Given the nature of the primary election rules, it is possible that a candidate wins the delegates from a state by only winning the plurality of votes, not an absolute majority. This is what Trump did in 2016. He won pluralities in many states (mostly between 15% and 30%), but more than any of the other 16 major candidates. If the anti-Trump voters could coalesce around one candidate, then Liz Cheney would have a chance of winning the nomination (albeit a long shot).

Republican voters will have their opportunity to choose their party’s future. May they choose well.

The FBI Search of Mar-a-Lago: We Hear what We Want to Hear and Disregard the Rest”

Back in 1970, Simon and Garfunkel recorded their album Bridge over Troubled Waters which contained the song, the Boxer. There is a penetrating line in the lyrics which says, “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” This is a sad, but true, commentary on human nature. Although most people say that they strive to follow the truth, in fact, many of us reach our conclusions largely by our previously held beliefs rather than by the evidence and the truth.

On Monday, August 8, 2022, former president Donald Trump’s residence, Mar-a-Lago was searched by FBI agents with a warrant. They removed eleven sets of classified documents from his time in the White House. Many Trump supporters had an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and claimed the search was an illegal “raid” implemented by a politically motivated order by Attorney General, Merrick Garland. On the other side, many Democrats also had a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction, gleefully claiming that the former president was finally declared guilty for his multiple crimes. Both sides jumped the gun and “heard what they wanted to hear and disregarded the rest”.

CNN anchor Michael Smerconish (previously a Republican, now a centrist Independent) created an imaginary conversation between two co-workers, one a Republican, and the other a Democrat:

I can just imagine a conversation between a Republican and Democratic co-worker, they’re gathered around the Keurig and the Democrat says, “Ah, the ‘New York Times’ reported Thursday that there was a subpoena issued, so when Trump didn’t comply, the search was necessary.” And the Republican response, “Yes, but he had produced certain documents and he was cooperating. He even greeted the people from the archives when they came to his house in June. So why didn’t the Feds file a motion to compel or issue another subpoena?” The Democrat says, “If Trump really was a victim, he’d have produced the warrant and inventory that day it happened.” And the Republican response, “The warrant and inventory, they’re meaningless. Show us the affidavit.” The Democrat, “The Washington Post said they were classified documents relating to nuclear weapons. So, there was urgency in conducting the search.” And the Republican response, “The warrant was signed on a Friday, executed on a Monday. That’s not urgency.”

People on both sides “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”. As the dust is slowly settling, we all need to take a deep breath and wait for the facts to play out.

Democrats were right when they affirmed that a subpoena had been issued in June, 2022. Not all the documents were turned in. (even though a lawyer for Trump falsely declared that all the documents had been turned over)

Republicans were right in being somewhat skeptical andy reques they appropriately requested that the warrant and the receipt of materials be made public. Merrick Garland released them. The warrant revealed there was probable cause that three laws had been broken: (1) the Espionage Act; (2) the destruction of documents; and (3) the obstruction of justice. If true, these are serious crimes and we need to see if the Department of Justice brings charges or not. According to the receipt, the FBI search obtained eleven sets of information (in about 20 boxes).

1 set of top secret information / SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information
4 sets of other top secret information
3 sets of secret information
3 sets of confidential documents

This does not bode well for the former president. At the very least, it shows deep carelessness. If it is shown that Trump had knowledge and intent, he might be indicted.

Trump, many Republican leaders and major news outlets have all asked that the affidavit (that was used to justify the warrant) be released to the public. I doubt that this will take place because it deals with super sensitive information (it possibly contains names of our spies and informants, nuclear weapons, methods of espionage, etc.). What I do suggest is that the DOJ reveal the affidavit to the ranking bipartisan members of the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. These members already have special clearance to handle delicate information and should be trusted.

I also request that we pay attention to what we don’t want to hear even if it is spoken by the “other side”. If it is true, we need to include it in our conclusions. If it is false, we should gracefully refute it. Our democracy is in a fragile situation. Seeking the truth, speaking the truth, and heeding the truth are more necessary than ever.

The FBI Search of Mar-a-Lago: “We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest”

CNN anchor Michael Smerconish (previously a Republican, now a centrist Independent) created an imaginary conversation between two co-workers, one a Republican, and the other a Democrat:

People on both sides “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”. As the dust is slowly settling, we all need to take a deep breath and wait for the facts to play out.

1 set of top secret information / SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information
4 sets of other top secret information
3 sets of secret information
3 sets of confidential documents

This does not bode well for the former president. At the very least, it shows deep carelessness. If it is shown that Trump had knowledge and intent, he might be indicted.

I Agree with Donald Trump (regarding his earlier position on the Fifth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains several rights, including the right to “remain silent” in court and not provide evidence that is “self-incriminating”. Its original intent was to limit the government’s power to coerce people to make false confessions of guilt. The common use today of “taking the Fifth” or “pleading the Fifth” is that guilty persons can remain silent and not provide answers that would incriminate them.

I have always had problems about people who “take the Fifth”. If they are truly innocent, what is the problem in answering questions with truthful answers? In other words, only people who are guilty use this amendment, and they do so with the hope of evading or postponing the truth about their guilt. The truth usually wins out. Guilty actions eventually come into the light and appropriate punishment is meted out.

Back in 2016 when Donald Trump was running for president, he pronounced his opinion about those who take the Fifth. At a rally in Iowa, he criticized some of Hillary Clinton’s staff who had utilized the amendment to remain silent: “Her staffers taking the Fifth Amendment, how about that? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” During a presidential debate, Trump affirmed that “taking the Fifth” was “disgraceful”. I agree with Trump. When people are innocent, they should answer court questions and answer with the truth.

On Wednesday of this week, Trump appeared in a deposition with the New York Attorney General who is leading a civil investigation of the Trump organization’s finances. It is alleged that the organization overestimated the value of the company’s assets in order to obtain loans at low interest rates. At the same time, it seems that the company underestimated the value of those same assets in order to pay lower taxes. Two of Trump’s children (Ivanka and Don, Jr., who hold positions of leadership in the organization) appeared in depositions recently and gave answers to the questions. Nevertheless, former president Trump “pled the Fifth” over 440 times on Wednesday and refused to answer simple questions regarding the company’s financial assets. More than 440 times! Clear answers could have proved his innocence if that were the true situation. The refusal to answer legitimate question, at the very least, gives the impression of guilt.

Noted legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, who served as attorney for Trump, yesterday told reporters that he was shocked upon hearing that the former president used the Fifth Amendment 440 times if he has “nothing to hide”.

Given that there exist financial documents from the Trump organization, its innocence or guilt will soon come to light. A Scriptural maxim is that “we will be judged by our own words”. Consistency between our words and our deeds is important for our ethical integrity. I agree with Trump’s words six years ago regarding the Fifth Amendment, and therefore, and based upon his own words, I do not approve of his refusal to answer the deposition questions on Wednesday.

Heroes from the Hearings

Over the last ten days, we have witnessed three more hearings from the Congressional January 6 Committee. Many people have emerged as heroes, those who have demonstrated unusual courage. In spite of criticisms from their “friends” and enormous peer pressure, they showed their commitment to our country, our constitution, and our people by speaking the truth as they understood it. Like the rest of us, they surely have their flaws. Nevertheless, I mention two of them as worthy heroes whose courage should be emulated. They are Brad Raffensperger and Cassidy Hutchinson.

Raffensperger is a conservative Republican who has served as Georgia’s Secretary of State since 2019. Prior to that office, he was a businessman, a civil engineer, and a representative in Georgia’s House of Representatives representing District 50. No conservative should doubt his credentials nor his integrity. The presidential election of 2020 put that integrity to the test. In his role as Secretary of State, he announced that Biden had won the election, and as a consequence, Georgia’s electors. On January 2, 2021, he received a phone call in which President Trump asked him to “find” 11,780 additional votes, just enough to obtain Georgia’s delegates to the Electoral College. Raffensperger resisted that request. He had analyzed the allegations of voter fraud and concluded Biden had won the state, fair and square. Faithfulness to the truth was more important than “loyalty” to a powerful individual.

On Tuesday, Cassidy Hutchinson was the main witness in that day’s hearing. Although she is only in her mid-twenties, she held a significant role in the White House as an aide to the former Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. She is a conservative Republican and was committed to the policies of the Trump administration. Nevertheless, she witnessed important failures of the former president and key members of his team. She came forward and testified, under oath, of what she saw and heard: Trump’s authorization of his supporters to have various weapons at the speech at the Ellipse on January 6, the president’s desire to go to the Capitol that day to protest the certification of Biden’s victory, many key people who requested a presidential pardon for their involvement in the insurrection, mistakes that Meadows committed, plus other pieces of vital information. She testified, in spite of various forms of pressure, including threats upon her life. Loyalty to the truth was more important than covering up for leaders when they make mistakes.

All people, but especially public servants, can learn a lot from these two heroes. The lesson is important for persons of all political persuasions, for Republicans and Democrats alike: truth is important. People in power and political parties frequently demand an absolute “loyalty” from their followers. We have a higher commitment. We are called to walk in the truth and admit our failures. May we draw upon the courage to do so.