India is still straitjacketed by caste impediments, Europe by class boundaries, China, Japan, and South Korea by sharp racial distinctions, and the Arab world by insidious tribal loyalties. The idea of a Brazilian or Chinese President Obama is the stuff of fantasy. All that retrograde typecasting seems pretty post-something to me. In contrast, America, alone of the major powers, is a multiracial open society bound by one culture, where merit, more than race, tribe, birth, or class, determines success.

Hanson is of course right. And that’s why the decades old but ongoing liberal assault on what I think is the core value, the bedrock, foundational principle, of the United States — that individuals should be treated without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin — is much worse than merely bad policy. It’s downright subversive.

Compared to the way Obama is usually revered by Politico, this article actually approached even-handedness once or twice, most prominently in its generous admission that “the vast majority” of criticisms of  Obama “aren’t … rooted in race.” Since the bulk of the article’s space and nearly all of its quotations were given over to those like Jesse Jackson who see Obama criticism as characterized by “code words” and “coded expressions” of racism, however, Thrush’s and Slack’s admission sounds about the same as an observation they quote from that highly regarded racial statesman, Al Sharpton, who similarly admitted that “not all” the people in this country can’t stand the fact that a black man is president.

Anyone worried about Politico backsliding into a reasonable facsimile of objectivity regarding Obama, however, needn’t. Thrush and Slack make it abundantly clear that on race Obama is as pure (probably in part because he’s not as white) as the driven snow. Obama, they assure us, is “a one-of-kind politician whose crossover appeal to white independents has always been rooted in a color-blind appeal to fairness.” Obama has always, they assure us, “gone out of his way to make sure white voters can’t accuse him of favoring blacks.”

Of course — this is Politico, after all — Thrush and Slack never even mention affirmative action. Since they don’t, they never explain how Obama’s unwavering support for racial preference policies, his opposition to state referenda requiring color blindness, his administration’s briefs in support  of racial preference policies in Texas and elsewhere, and his Justice Department’s steadfast refusal to prosecute any voter fraud or intimidation cases against minorities comports with his asserted “color-blind appeal to fairness.”

As though those (and others uncited) weren’t enough, now I’ve done it again — in an essay just up on Minding The Campus, Let’s Be Frank about Anti-Asian Admission Policies.

Yes, Inside Higher Ed and Prof. Espenshade, let’s be frank. In the old, pre-politically correct days I would have invited IHE and Prof. E to be frank and call a spade a spade in describing what is obviously discrimination against Asian-Americans, but spades can no longer be called spades for fear that some will regard that idiomatic expression as a racial slur.

Harvard “does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants,” and doesn’t comment on the specifics of complaints under federal review, spokesman Jeff Neal said. Asian-Americans comprised 16 percent of Harvard undergraduates in the 2010-2011 academic year, down from 18 percent in 2005-2006, according to the university’s website.

“Our review of every applicant’s file is highly individualized and holistic, as we give serious consideration to all of the information we receive and all of the ways in which the candidate might contribute to our vibrant educational environment and community,” Neal said.

Princeton, also under investigation for discriminating against Asians, read from the same script:

Princeton is aware of the 2011 complaint and will provide the government with the requested information, university spokesman Martin Mbugua said. The college, in Princeton, New Jersey, doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, he said.

“We make admissions decisions on a case-by-case basis in our efforts to build a well-rounded, diverse class,” Mbugua said.

Academic diversicrats have been inhaling their own smoke for so long they don’t realize how transparently inconsistent and even incoherent such puffed up justifications are. But Roger Clegg does, as he shows here:

Now, I suspect that under cross-examination Harvard actually would admit that it does discriminate in favor of “underrepresented groups” (like African Americans and Latinos), which of course means that it is discriminating against “overrepresented groups” (like whites and, yes, Asians). Of course, it would prefer not to put it that way, to say flatly that it discriminates against Asian-Americans: It would rather say that it considers race as a just one factor in admissions so that it will have a diverse student body — something like that. But the fact is that, if you consider race, then in some instances it’s going to make a difference in whether a person is admitted (otherwise, why bother to consider it?), and when that happens, you have racial discrimination. Simple as that.

Now take the Princeton denial quoted above (please, take it away!). If each admissions decision were really made “on a case-by-case basis” — which means, assuming it means anything at all, that each applicant is evaluated individually, without reference to other applicants — how would the admissions office know whether  admitting any applicant would contribute to the effort to build a “diverse” class?

Just as hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, so obfuscation is the tribute “diversity” pays to the non-discrimination principle.

Drum agrees with the Obama administration’s view that if the Church is going to provide such services to the general public, i.e., to all the needy without regard to their religious affiliation, it should have to offer insurance coverage to its workers for contraception etc., just as other providers to. “If we’d been talking about, say, an Islamic hospital insisting that its employees bind themselves to sharia law,” Drum argues, “I imagine the ‘religious community’ in the United States would be a wee bit more understanding if the Obama administration refused to condone the practice.”

I dunno. I think it’s just as easy to imagine that the Obama administration might be much more willing to offend Catholics than Muslims, who after all, contribute much more “diversity” to American life.