SACRAMENTO, CA -- Back at the end of World War II, as Allied armies surrounded Berlin, one witnessed the phenomenon of German troops deciding to fight to the literal bitter end even though they knew that their cause was lost. Today, we see a similarly doomed strategy being employed by race-preference supporters.

In Washington, DC, Bill Clinton's advisory panel on race recently made the shocking decision to exclude race-preference critics from testifying before the panel. U.S. Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), author of a bill to eliminate federal race preference programs, rightly observed, "It's been clear from the outset that the board was designed to support the president's [pro-preference] position."

And in New Jersey, in a lawsuit involving a white female high school teacher laid off solely to maintain racial "diversity" on the high school faculty, a coalition of liberal civil rights groups chipped in $300,000 toward the $433,500 settlement offer that enticed the plaintiff to drop her suit prior to a January U.S. Supreme Court hearing. Why the rush for an out-of-court settlement? Liberal Harvard Prof. Cornel West admitted that, "If the Supreme Court had a chance to say something about affirmative action on a broad scale based on this case, it did not look good for those of us who support affirmative action." Commenting on West's brazen statement, Washington Post columnist James Glassman scornfully noted, "So here is a whole new perspective on jurisprudence: The best way to avoid a landmark legal decision is to bribe one of the parties into dropping the case."

Finally, perhaps the most ludicrous effort to turn the clock back comes from - where else - UC Berkeley. Ronald Takaki, an ethnic studies professor and dogmatic multiculturalist, has announced plans for a ballot initiative to rescind Prop. 209 and re-impose government race and gender preferences. Takaki claims, "Prop. 209 did not present the issue clearly or honestly. If we have [my measure] on the ballot, it will be very difficult for Ward Connerly to dupe the people of California." Earth to Takaki, are you serious? After all the media coverage and debate over Prop. 209 (much of which was biased against 209) can anyone actually believe that 209 passed by 54% of the voters simply because voters were "duped"? Takaki and his allies must be suffering from RDD - rationality deficit disorder.

As pro-preference die-hards continue to defend the indefensible, the Constitution and the courts keep up their inexorable advance. In his recent summary judgment striking down a county race-preference program in Texas, U.S. district court judge Lynn Hughes stated unequivocally that, "Because race is inescapably arbitrary, basing governmental action on race offends the American Constitution. Race is arbitrary because it is unrelated to the accomplishment of a public service and because the categories are hollow. Assigning governmental benefits to people by their skin color does not quit being arbitrary because advocates claim that a program has a progressive purpose; a principle wrong for [white pro-segregationist] Eugene Talmadge is wrong for Jesse Jackson." Hey, Professor Takaki, did you hear that?

--By Lance T. Izumi