The first sentence of your post is ont a fact.

“The essential first step to an understanding of Leftism is that Leftists do NOT care about the people they claim to care about.”

You may dispute the inferences from the facts but you are in the “Bush lied, people died” camp
if you confuse facts and inferences

I am surprised that you do not see that your factual error gives an opening to the left to condemn arguments against affirmative action. Further, your comments about your assumption what type of attorney the person your example is about, is not about “whites” or the Left but about how the policy of “Affirmative Action” may have created a situation through which an poorly trained Aboriginal attorney was allowed to practice.

Now as to your reply, please show me where in your example or your consideration of it, it is about “the doings of whites in the matter”? About the Left, sure but “whites”?

I ended my comment with “If we on the right have any hope of addressing society’s ills appropriate, we must state the truth, each and every time.” I should have added “And, when we conservatives misstate we should be honest enough to own our errors.

Finally, my comment was not written in “haste to condemn” rather I spent some time considering my response, my concerns and my words. I take truth, honesty and integrity.

It might be suggested that this distinction is not important but you have used a clear misstatement to suggest the example illuminates a problem for which the example has no relevance. An Aborigine, even if raised in the primary anglo-European culture of Australia, is very likely to continue certain cultural artifacts which would color his thinking. Such artifacts might include the Aboriginal concepts of time and could this not have affected his participation in your class. Seriously, what cultural or experiential relevance can you find between an American Black growing up anywhere in the U.S. and an Aborigine?
So, your suggestion that he was an Australian Black thus making his life experiences (as outlined) similar to that of an American Black is unsupported by the example or by any evidence.

Finally, you assumed that he became “probably the most incompetent lawyer in the whole country!” Have you any proof? What factual evidence do you have to support this statement?

You castigate the left for not caring about the individuals, stating that “What they hunger after is an appearance of righteousness and wise nobility — and an appearance of righteousness is indeed beneficial to almost anybody. Righteousness is no substitute for being right, however — but Leftists don’t care about that. Just the appearance will do them fine.”

This article leaves you—and by extension conservatives in general—open for criticism by the “righteous Left”. They might suggest that the right does not care about the truth, only about justifying their lack of care and concern for the individuals and the right’s desire to keep them “down on the farm”.

I have always believed that “affirmative action” was inherently bad for African-Americans as it is for Ango-Americans (of which I am) for many reasons. But your factual error and your conjectures will allow the left to throw out all arguments against it, making it difficult for other to argue against it on the facts.

If we on the right have any hope of addressing society’s ills appropriate, we must state the truth, each and every time.