Non-Falsifiable Liberalism of the Day

I've argued that Obama's election should trigger the termination of racial preferences. Still, I recognized this result was unlikely, given the left's preference for "group," rather than individual, rights. For state school admissions, this is embodied in a 2003 Supreme Court ruling exempting racial preferences from the 14th Amendment for a further 25 years.

My cynicism was warranted, based on Philippe Bernard's full-page interview with Harvard law prof Randall Kennedy in the February 1st Le Monde (automatic translation here; my rough translation below):

One year after the historic election of the first Black president of the United States, is the backlash mounting against him related to the color of his skin?

Without hesitation, yes. I do not claim that anyone criticizing Barack Obama is racist. But I'm certain that the issue of race permeates every aspect of American life. Some whites do not recognize the legitimacy of a Black head of the United States. Others are only not looking to admit it.. . .

Does Obama represent the emergence of a "post-racial America"?

Of course not! Why did people cry when Obama was elected? The color of his skin had nothing to do with it? Of course it did! Why was that moment so marvelous? Because many people thought they would never see the day when whites would vote for a black man. If America was post-racial, this wouldn't have been said.

Only progressives could use the election of a black President to prove America is racist. As ¡No Pasarán! remarks, "You can't win; I'm telling you, with those people, you can't win. . ."

A day early and a continent away, a cellar-dwelling academic emerged to prognosticate six or more years of racial discrimination. Having already decided we're still in the winter of white discontent, Kennedy and other lefties never checked if the groundhog cast a shadow.

(via Instapundit)