In an interview, Ward Connerly neatly points out the problem with Bush’s statement on the Grutter and Gratz cases. Here’s what the president said:

I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation’s campuses. Diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths. Today’s decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.

Now for Connerly’s observation:

But the more you read that [i.e., Bush’s statement], the more you begin to realize how far we have gone astray here, when it comes to the point that we’re balancing a constitutional command, namely equal treatment under the law, with the goal of diversity, which is nowhere to be found in the law! (Emphasis added)

Thus did O’Connor sacrifice a constitutional mandate before the idol of diversity.

Bush touts diversity as a laudable goal to be balanced against the equal protection of the laws. Instead, he should speak of diversity as the natural byproduct of laws that protect each citizen’s liberty equally. In so doing, he could recover the proper definition of civil rights as rights of citizenship that in no wise depend upon the color of one’s skin. Simply put, race should not be the measure of anyone’s rights under our Constitution.