Thomas’ vote shows he thinks he’s above the law
Affirmative action
Regarding “What is affirmative action? Explaining the Supreme
Court's landmark ruling on college admissions,” (June 29): I read, without surprise but with anger and fear, the news that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas voted to eliminate affirmative action. Thomas considers himself above the law and should be impeached, in my opinion. Under affirmative action, he was granted admission to Holy Cross College and then to Yale Law. He is, in my opinion, the most arrogant, hypocritical person in Washington, now that Trump is gone.
And now Justice Samuel Alito is saying he did not need to report a fishing trip worth somewhere around $100,000. Chief Justice John Roberts' wife places lawyers in Washington's top legal firms, at a fee, that often have cases in front of the court.
I believe that when judges are corrupt and consider themselves to be above the law, the entire system is corrupt. Any justice with any charge of inappropriate behavior, for any reason, needs to be forced to resign.
Mark Niles, Houston
Regarding “Affirmative action is dead. Texas shows diversity is still possible. (Editorial),” (June 29): In 1990, my company moved my family to Port Lavaca because of the new petrochemical complex being built by Formosa Plastics. Purchasing agents and engineers spoke Chinese, and my company felt it was necessary to have a sales engineer who was fluent in Chinese.
We lived in a tough neighborhood. It seemed like every kid wanted to be valedictorian. Gangs spent after-school hours preparing for math competitions. My daughter made the team, but competition was intense.
Many Formosa Plastics parents wanted their kids to get into Ivy League schools. One Chinese man whose son had been accepted into Harvard hosted a seminar for them. At this seminar, he told them to expect their children to have to score higher than either white kids or Black kids to be accepted into Harvard. He said that for a Chinese kid to be accepted into Harvard, he had to have SAT scores 50 points higher than a white applicant and 100 points higher than a Black applicant. Our laws erected discriminatory barriers for Chinese entrants.
Today I hear Chinese American applicants must score even higher to have an equal opportunity to be accepted. We should not punish Chinese kids for the sins of America's racial past.
Bill Waters, Sugar Land
Regarding “The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples,” (June 30): It is an entirely new world and an entirely new Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the United States. It is now allowed to discriminate against people as long as it is part of your religion. It is not allowed to work on the effects of discrimination by using race in college admissions.
This interpretation of the Declaration of Independence demands that it be revised to say: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal except those we are already discriminating against.”
The message seems to be “don't bring up the subject of race.” The credibility of the Supreme Court is going down, fast.
Doug Verret, Sugar Land
Initially, affirmative action was implemented with only the best of intentions in the wake of the civil rights movement of the '60s. In today's world, I feel it's morphed into little more than a political tool. Dividing people according to skin color and other superficial characteristics is one of the most effective strategies for Democrats to continue enjoying a majority of minority votes. And for the same reason, I suspect Democrats will find a workaround, so I'll be paying attention to see how they do it.
Oddly, non-Hispanic whites are still considered a favored majority, even in situations where they're actually the minority, because of the pervasive concept of “white privilege.” Affirmative action was a big deal in the 1970s, when I was in college. I'm a little surprised it's still a big deal because Chief Justice John Roberts said many years ago that the best way to end racial discrimination is to simply stop doing it. Instead, we've continued to keep racial discrimination alive by institutionalizing it in the form of affirmative action, and now diversity, equity and inclusion policies, augmented by critical race theory.
Institutionalizing racial discrimination has certainly not ended it, so maybe we should give the John Roberts method a try and just stop doing it — all of it. This strategy would also align nicely with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous dream, which I share.
Greg Groh, Houston
Regarding “In landmark decision, U.S. Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in admissions,”
( June 29): Friday's front-page Chronicle headline is exactly why people are tired of reading this newspaper. After the Supreme Court struck down the highly prejudicial and dubious practice of judging people by the color of their skin alongside the content of their character and academic achievements, the Chronicle had two choices for their headline: a) “Historic ruling is seen as a blow to diversity” or b) “Historic ruling ends reverse discrimination.” Guess which headline the Chronicle chose?
Jay Kopfer, Houston