John Rosenberg's Discriminations remains down, and John consequently remains a blogger without a home. He's paid another visit to Critical Mass, however, where he's always welcome. His latest is posted below.

____________

There was a revealing demonstration at the University of Pennsylvania on February 13 protesting Justice Antonin Scalia and his views on affirmative action. (Link via Howard Bashman)

Although demonstrations are not the best places to observe reasoned, thoughtful arguments, this demonstration at Penn was particularly striking because of the level of Ivy League preferentialist analysis that it put on display. Even for demonstration-thought, that level was quite low.

Quotations follow, in italics, with any comments of mine following in plain text.

Bush says Jim Crow/We say hell no!

These Ivy Leaguers must be quite smart to have plumbed the depths of Bush's mind and heart to discover that his opposition on principle to discrimination based on race is really a call to return to officially imposed segregation.

"We're headed backwards, and that's insanity," History graduate student Kyle Farley said.

"America's historical memory is way too short," Farley continued, explaining his participation in the demonstration. "I study American history, so I don't forget what's happened."

Translation: if you knew as much as I do, you'd agree with me.

Does [Penn] have a problem?" asked Classical Studies Professor Keith DeVries, who happened to walk by the protest.

When told that the signs and chanting were directed at Scalia, DeVries response was to the point.

"What a horrible person," he said. "Who invited him?"

Exactly whose point was that to? Classical studies always did induce humility and modesty, and it's nice to see those virtues thriving at Penn.

"He's an evil man," said Anthony Monteiro, a lecturer in Afro-American Studies. "He's a throwback to Dred Scott."

This shows historical understanding at Penn is on a par with Classical wisdom. Let's see, Dred Scott held that the territories could not exclude slaves and offered as dicta that blacks had no rights whites were bound to respect. Thus it's easy to see how Mr. Monteiro, lecturer, would think that identical with Justice Scalia's view that blacks and whites have exactly the same rights, based on the principle that every person must treated without regard to race, creed, or national origin.

Second-year Graduate School of Education student Kelley Evans expressed fears that Scalia represented "a return to education where diversity is not represented."

"That's going backwards," she continued. "That's the world of my parents."

"I'm going forward," she concluded, as she walked back into the circular ranks of the picketers.

Well, as a parent I feel qualified to say that Ms. Evans is indeed going somewhere, but I don't think it's forward.

Academic Program chair of the Black Student League and a resident in DuBois College House, [College sophomore Carl] Foreman described the possibility that programs such as DuBois itself might be rendered unconstitutional as "scary for me, personally."

It's hard to see how Michigan losing would close down the Black Student League or, even assuming it is a black only residence, DuBois College House at Penn. (Racially segregated housing might be under more pressure at a public university, and I repeat that I'm only guessing here as to what DuBois College House is.) But let's say that Foreman's worst fears were realized: it sounds like the worst that would happen is that he might haveÝto experience more diversity than he does now.

It's too bad Kathy Change is no longer there wearing her rocket penis and haranguing the Green from in front of the peace sign. At least she had put her life where her protesting mouth was, instead of arranging to meet the rest of the gang at Smokes after a little fist pumping. She had a wicked sense of humor, too.

"Justice Scalia's view that blacks and whites have exactly the same rights, based on the principle that every person must treated without regard to race, creed, or national origin."

I wonder how the writer reconciles this claim about Scalia's views with his having stated publicly that he would have voted to uphold segregated schools had he been on the Supreme Court for the Brown decision.