First, you gotta give it to the French! They really know how to riot. Over 400 people arrested across the country, because a policeman shot and killed a 17 year old boy, whose single mother was from Algeria. Okay, this does not make him “noir”, and the title of this post should start with “Driving While Algerienne”. I did bad. So shoot me. (No, no, that’s the problem).

In our country, it isn’t driving while Algerian, it’s driving while Black, say Captain Obvious. (But let me digress a bit – what is Algerian to the French? Until deGaulle decided that La France did not have to keep its hold on Algerie and fight a horrible war to do so, Algeria had not been a French colonie, it had been a part of France, and Algerians were as French as Parisiennes. So someone of Algerian ancestry in France is different from, say, someone with French Moroccan or Tunisian ancestry. Now, is that relevant to this discussion? I think the answer is a resounding “no”, but it’s interesting. Maybe the most interesting you’ll be confronted with all day.)

Now back to our subject matter. The French and their riots. Just look at what we have seen in the past five years or so. Yellow vested Frenchmen rioting about higher gasoline prices. All sorts of vested Frenchmen rioting about a proposal to raise the retirement age to…….what was it again? 35? And now these riots just because some gendarme shot un jeune homme, 17 years old, Algerian ancestry, no crime record, no weapons, no drugs.

Yes, the French riot much better than we do. Our riots, whether Jan 6 at the Capitol, or protests earlier in Portland, tend to be sordid affairs, while the French riots turn one’s mind back to the barricades in Les Miserables.

Les Miserables, and poor Jean Valjean, a man deprived and not really depraved. He needed a helping hand, and got the opposite. Compare poor Jean Valjean to a poor jeune homme in the United States, who happens to be noir/Black. What does he deserve?

According to some, he needs a helping hand (translated into English: affirmative action). According to others, he needs to learn to stand on his own two feet. Perhaps, both are correct.

Yesterday, the 6-3 Supreme Court ruled that colleges and universities cannot use race as a factor in undergraduate (I think) admissions. But they can look at a candidate and say “this guy, because of his background, needs a helping hand”, or they can say, “this guy, in spite of his background, seems to be able to stand on his own two feet”.

All of which is to say that I don’t know what kind of effect this ruling will really have, except that it will turn university admissions committees into the same kind of targets that local school boards have become. You take an “elite” school like Harvard that gets 35 applicants for every acceptance. You apply (you are White) and you are rejected. Someone else applies (Black) and is accepted. What is your reaction? Your reaction is that you are as smart as that other guy, but he was accepted, not because he is Black, but because he fought to overcome the obstacles set before him because he is Black? No, your reaction is that he was admitted and you were not because he is Black. Are you right? Do you know what was in the mind of the admission officer who made the final decision? No, but you can guess and – if you pursue your feelings far enough – maybe the Supreme Court will agree with you.

In other words, will this decision change anything on the ground? Maybe or maybe not. But it will undoubtedly change things in the court room. Everyone will clamor for equal protection. But how do you define equal protection when there are thirty five (OK, maybe twenty five) applicants for each space that are qualified academically? Even if it is only 25 qualified applicants for each slot, 24 for can say they were denied equal protection, now that that is the standard we are using.

And that leads me to Historic Black Colleges and University (HBCUs). People are saying that they will benefit from this ruling because more qualified Blacks will apply to them. Maybe so, but to the extent that more qualified Blacks apply to them, less qualified Blacks (who now can gain admission) will not be admitted. Does this help the situation?

And let’s say that HBCUs rise to the challenge, increase admissions, take in more highly and moderately qualified Black students, while other universities see their Black enrollments drop. And let’s say further that both of these groups of schools do just fine in educating their student bodies. Where are we then? We might wind up with a wonderful higher education system – and one that is basically racially segregated.

Where do I stand on this overall question? I am not really sure. And I think that if you are REALLY sure ….. there is probably something incomplete in your thinking, and you need to delve into it more deeply. You need to decide first, what is the goal? Then, what will achieve that goal? Finally, does the constitution allow it? (Hint: on this particular issue, the answer to the last question is “yes”, provided you can get 5 of 9 individuals to say so.)

And, by the way, what does this do to the possibility of reparations laws?