universities, and others operating underrnthe federahzed affirmative-action programrnare portentous. Civil-rights advocatesrnand their lawyers should find theirrnbusiness booming.rnYet consider Ward Connerly, businessrnentrepreneur, vice chairman of the Universityrnof California board of regents, andrnchief advocate of California’s Propositionrn209, which bars the state from favoringrnminorities in such matters as state contractrnawards and college entrance ratios.rnConnerly sees himself as an unhyphenatedrnAmerican and asks other states to followrnCalifornia’s race-blind lead, as WashingtonrnState did in 1998. Still, in thernmatter of affirmative action, who is inrncharge: the states or the feds? Ultimately,rnthe U.S. Supreme Court will decide —rnone hopes on the grounds of the First,rnNinth, and Tenth Amendments, whichrnreserve such decision-making to thernstates or the people themselves. But howeverrnthe Court rules, the question of differentrn”races” will remain.rnAs Connerly says:rnThere are those who say that racernmatters, that we have to use race tornget beyond race. Then, there arernthose of us who believe, as PresidentrnKennedy said in 1963, “Racernhas no place in American life orrnlaw.”rnLudwig von Mises attacked Nazi Aryanrnrace theory in his Omnipotent Governmentrn(1944): “It is certain that there arerntoday no pure stocks within the class orrnrace of white-skinned people.” RichardrnDawkins, lecturer in zoology at OxfordrnUniversity and author of the best-sellingrnThe Selfish Gene (1989), holds thatrnconceivably racial prejudice couldrnbe interpreted as an irrational generalizationrnof a kin-selected tendencyrnto identify with individuals physicallyrnresembling oneself, and to bernnasty to individuals different in appearance.rn”Race,” as you can gather, defies preciserndefinition—apart from Homo sapiens,rnthe human race. Alone among thernEarth’s species, man possesses sui generisrncharacteristics: among them, vertebratedrnbackbone, upright posture, hands, distinguishingrnhair, and advanced nervous systems.rnThe striking system is the humanrnbrain, which empowers spoken and writtenrnlanguage, abstract thought, rationalrnintelligence, economic calculation, andrnthe development of a culture of the arts.rn”Races” (in the sense of variegated subdivisionsrnof the human family) are complicatedrnby the fact that every individualrnin that family is himself unique, distinct,rndissimilar from each of his fellows, andrnyet broadly similar to them. Furtherrncomplications arise through the associationrnof racial classifications with differentrnlanguages, cultures, and regions.rnToday, some scholars are challengingrnthe politically correct race concept. Forrnexample, Mary Lefkowitz, a professor ofrnclassics at Wellesley College, writes: “Inrnancient Greece, slaves could be of anyrncolor depending on who had been conquered.rnThere was no Greek word forrnrace.” And Kenneth K. Kidd, professor ofrngenetics and psychiatry at Yale’s MedicalrnSchool, claims:rnWhen I look at DNA, I see nornracial differences. There tend to bernmore DNA variations within eachrnpopulation group than betweenrngroups, and such variation is presentrnbroadly around the world withinrnevery population.rnYes, affirmative action rightly targetsrndiscrimination. But it uses the wrongrnmethods: state coercion and numericalrnquotas. It also ignores many of the importantrnproblems that face minorities today,rnproblems that the government itselfrnhas caused: disastrous public schools, therndisintegration of the familv through welfare,rnthe subsidization of out-of-wedlockrnbirths, a sorry criminal-justice system,rnand disincentives and moral hazards targetedrnat black neighborhoods, includingrnrelief payments, public housing, foodrnstamps, and minimum wages.rnAboe all, government intervention inrn”racial” matters contravenes the FirstrnAmendment right of freedom of associationrnand the entire Bill of Rights philosophyrnof free choice under the rule of law.rnUncle Sam seems to be saying, “Loe thyrnneighbor—or else.” In a nutshell, the officialrnview of “race” makes for a weakrnreed to enforce a national policy of racialrn”diversity.” Force doesn’t square withrndue process. Affirmative action is vTongheadedrnand counterproductive. It mocksrnthe ver)’ civil rights that it purports to upholdrnand lends itself to racial polarization.rnIt hits at voluntarism, choice, andrnconsent, and meddles in free marketsrnwhich could otherwise ease racial tensionrnand result in greater social mobilit}’.rnharmony, and, in the broadest sense,rncommunit)’.rnThe answer to forced affirmative actionrnis “end it, don’t mend it.” The answerrnis, broadly, unforced affirmation —rnan era of good will for all Homo sapiens:rnmutual grace, mutual compassion, mutualrnrespect, and mutual cooperation allrnaround.rnWilliam H. Peterson, DistinguishedrnLundy Professor Emeritus of BusinessrnPhilosophy at Campbell University inrnNorth Carolina, is an adjunct scholarrnat the Heritage Foundation.rnReel Crimes,rnTrue Illusionsrnby George McCartneyrnTrue CrimernProduced by Malpaso ProductionsrnDirected by Clint EastwoodrnScreenplay by Andrew Klavanrnand Larry GrossrnReleased by Warner Bros.rnThe MatrixrnProduced by Groucho U Film Partnershiprnand Silver PicturesrnDirected by Andy Wachowskirnand Larry WachowskirnScreenplay by Andy Wachowskirnand Larry WachowskirnReleased by Warner Bros.rnClint Eastwood’s True Crime lives uprnto its name: It is a truly criminal assaultrnon our credulity. With numbingrnpredictability, it recycles the old deathrowrnexecution-eve stor)’.rnThe condemned man is Frank Beachum,rnthe quintessential victim, an innocentrnblack man in the wrong place at thernwrong time. He is played by IsaiahrnWashington with a studied, almost airlessrnnobility that is, amazingl), one of the fewrnconvincing touches in this otherwise pre-rnJULY 1999/43rnrnrn