Jewish World Review Jan. 25, 2002 / 12 Shevat, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Making MLK cry -- WHAT would Martin Luther King Jr. have made of Monday's Boston Globe?

On Page 10, to honor King's memory and legacy, a full-page ad reproduced the peroration of his unforgettable 1963 speech at the Lincoln Memorial:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. . . . I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

"I have a dream today. . . ."

It was the greatest American speech of the 20th century, and it is right and proper and really very wonderful that 40 years after it was delivered, we regard the man who delivered it as an American hero and are uplifted and inspired by his words.

But if Page 10 would have raised King's spirits, Page 1 would have broken his heart.

On Martin Luther King Day, the Globe's front page featured a story on what it called the "growing debate" over the use of the word "minority" to refer to racial or ethnic groups. It reported that the M-word has, to some, "the outdated ring of 'Negro,' 'Oriental,' 'Spanish,' and 'Eskimo.' " (Spanish?) Among those making that claim is Charles Yancey, a black member of the Boston City Council. "It implies inferiority and inequity among Americans," he said last year in proposing to ban the term from all city documents. His motion passed unanimously -- a good thing, as former Councilor Thomas Keane observed, since otherwise what would we have called those who voted against it?

It goes without saying -- but for the sake of any readers who have just emerged from a cave in Tora Bora and don't understand how things work in America today, I'll say it anyway -- that Yancey's purpose in condemning "minority" was not to drive home the point that the law knows neither majority nor minority but insists on one standard for all.

It was not to make it clear that the sine qua non of "racial justice" is color-blindness.

It was not to emphasize the gross indecency of racial preferences and set-asides -- of quotas that assign jobs or contracts or promotions or seats in the freshman class on the basis of skin color or family origin.

It was not to ensure that Boston's laws be written in language unpolluted by any hint of racial or ethnic classification.

No. It was simply to find new words for the same old hustle.

Every person quoted in the Globe's story seemed to take it for granted that American institutions should go on sorting human beings by race and ethnicity. Brooke Woodson, who heads the city's Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprise, favors dropping "minority." Pedro Pirez, a Cuban immigrant whose construction firm qualifies for special advantages as a "minority-owned" business, favors keeping it. But both endorse the entrenched system of preferences that subordinates equality and merit to race in the name of "diversity."

As a matter of plain linguistic fact, it is untrue that "minority" has a pejorative connotation. Virtually no one objects to the term, writes Randall Kennedy, the Harvard law professor whose newest book is a history of the word "nigger," other than "a few determined people with an exorbitant sense of aggrievement."

How far the civil rights movement has fallen! Once it struggled for the dignity and equality of all Americans and called, in A. Philip Randolph's words, for "the abrogation of every law which makes a distinction in treatment between citizens based on religion, creed, color, or national origin." Today it fusses over the word "minority." King, who knew the difference between real insults and make-believe ones, would be appalled.

"When you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading 'white' and 'colored,' " he wrote from the Birmingham jail, "when your first name becomes 'nigger' and your middle name becomes 'boy' . . . and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title 'Mrs.' . . . -- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."

Difficult to wait for what? What was it that King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were trying to achieve when they faced Bull Connor's dogs and hoses? An America in which the law would continue to play racial favorites while city councilors piously debated the merits of "minorities" vs. "people of color"?

The question answers itself. King did not protest the double standards of Jim Crow so they could be replaced with the double standards of affirmative action. His dream was of a world in which the law would take no notice of race or ethnicity, a world in which there would be no legal disadvantage to being a minority -- and no advantage, either.

Americans today are a remarkably tolerant and unbigoted people -- especially when compared with others around the world -- and yet our government and laws are obsessed as never before with race and racial categories. That obsession in turn infects our workplaces, our schools, our media. Thirty-four years after Dr. King's death, we are more mired in race than ever. If he could see us, he would weep.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe