This morning, the nation’s highest court begins its business. Much is being made of the fact that some of that business this session involve matters of civil rights, including the combustible subject of Affirmative Action. Why don’t we just stipulate that any discussion of that matter by the Court should be put off for another twenty years.

      Much also has been made of the recent re-introduction of Arithmetic into the public discourse. Its simplicity provides a useful tool when attempting to explain the seemingly outlandish suggestion made above.

      Affirmative Action is one consequence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was forty-eight years ago. That act was an attempt to begin ameliorating the damage wrought by the Court’s 1896 Plessy decision, when the Court – in essence – somehow thought it would not be unconstitutional to separate black people from their constitutional rights. It was the duty of Congress to say otherwise. Not feeling otherwise, Congress said nothing until 1964 – sixty-eight years later. So, for those who have yet to see where this is going: if the government could officially preside over rank discrimination for sixty-eight years, and if the society at large could gladly support it, then both should be able to grudgingly support counteractions for at least sixty-eight years. That would leave twenty more to go.

      There are some, of course, who will quibble about dates and time frames, pointing to the Court’s attempt to reverse and redeem itself in 1954 with Brown. Those who would do so should be reminded that the Constitution requires Congress – not the Court – to make laws. Besides, quibbling can go both ways. Sixty-eight eight years is quite a compromise. What would happen if the years between the ratification of the Constitution and the ratification of the 15^th Amendment were taken into account? What if things were pushed back to the Declaration, or even back to 1619? Yes, one would think the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments would negate any claim on the Reconstruction years; after all, those guarantees and protections were all there in writing. But what did it mean when a law that freed slaves had to be followed with one that told people that the freed slaves were citizens? What did it mean when the law that said freed slaves were citizens had to be followed with one that told people that these citizens had the right to exercise the rights of citizenship? What did it mean that all those laws had to be followed almost a hundred years later with yet another law telling people the same thing all over again? No, let’s not quibble.

      We can acknowledge, can’t we, that some of the pathologies that continue to plague some communities are the result of generations of discrimination? If so, why can’t we even consider the possibility that problems built over generations may take generations to solve? How about hands off for at least another twenty years? Let’s stipulate it.