One of the dimensions of “Kyriarchy” and the belief in “White Privilege” is that White people are innately racist while non-Whites can never be racist. As a corollary, this means that non-Whites are always victims of racism while Whites can never be victims of racism. This is, of course, patently absurd.

But it is this delusional ideology that declares that racial equality is not only innately discriminatory, but actually in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality under the law, and thus racist!

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments over the case of Schuette v. BAMN, where a ban on racial discrimination is being challenged as being Unconstitutional!

James Taranto points out a telling exchange between the attorney, Shanta Driver, for the contradictorily named “Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, or BAMN” and Antonin Scalia:

Driver: We ask this Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that’s expressed in Hunter-Seattle, and to bring the 14th Amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case. Scalia: My goodness, I thought we’ve–we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races. I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only–only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that. You–you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities? Driver: I think it is–it’s a measure that’s an antidiscrimination measure. Scalia: Right. Driver: And it’s a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by–by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority. Scalia: And unless that exists, the 14th Amendment is not violated; is that right? So if you have a banding together of various minority groups who discriminate against–against whites, that’s okay? Driver: I think that– Scalia: Do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th Amendment, that it protects only minorities? Any case? Driver: No case of yours.

This is a textbook example of how the rabid racialist Left decide that inequality is equality. Since the 14th Amendment, to them, protects against discrimination, it only applies to non-Whites since Whites are considered to have power, as defined by the “Critical Theory” advocates, and thus can not be victims of discrimination, while non-Whites have no power, again defined by the “Critical Theory” advocates, and thus are always perpetrators of dicrimination.

The reality of the situation is that treating people unequally under the law is illegal, regardless of who is of which race or not.

One can but hope that a majority of the Supreme Court upholds real equality under the law, and rejects the insanity of BAMN.

Tweet