Added to that, you have only sight or perhaps a few moments of conversation to figure out whether the person is a likely criminal. It should be obvious that you have a much less detailed picture of the target, and thus have to rely upon cruder tools than a college admissions rep.

At what point do you begin worrying about that thing called evidence?

On the other hand, if you’re a cop on the beat, you don’t have all that information about a potential criminal. All you have is a collection of profiles, which you learn through your own experience or the experiences of others. Added to that, you have only sight or perhaps a few moments of conversation to figure out whether the person is a likely criminal. It should be obvious that you have a much less detailed picture of the target, and thus have to rely upon cruder tools than a college admissions rep.

So, in the ACLU’s world, it’s okay for state actors to confer certain rights and advantages to people based on skin color or whether one stands or sits in the bathroom…if someone’s race or gender is the “right” one?

Whether you support it or not, that has been a valid position for decades.

I disagree with the ACLU on this one though. The voters of Michigan, a pretty diverse state, made it clear they didn’t want to allow racial preference anymore. The ACLU doesn’t have any basis for going directly against that will.

Do I detect a steamin’ plate o’ hypocrisy? Even to use “race or gender as one factor among many” is clearly giving certain people advantages not available to others similarly qualified because of skin pigment or nether equipment.

Their position definitely doesn’t match their platform, but you better believe I’m going to quote you if I ever see you come out in favor of racial profiling.