Fourth of July should never be celebrated without repeating again the sacred words that crown the Declaration of Independence and symbolize the American Dream.

And at this point, it’s fair to ask whether that majestic passage is in line with or conflicts with the landmark Supreme Court decision banning race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions.

The phrase most of us studied in school:

We take for granted these truths, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

the nations

F

founders supported their revolutionary secession from Britain with this solemn proclamation: We mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honours.

It was a noble statement of principles that had no legal weight and bore little resemblance to real life even for many of the signatories. For the majority of them, including major draftsmen Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, their fortunes included slaves, who were treated the opposite of equals.

Slavery remained legal in America before

another

89

more

year. It cost

one the

Civil War, the death of an estimated 620,000 soldiers and arguably America’s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, to abolish slavery.

While the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, it was silent about women. They were not allowed to vote for it

another

143

more

years.

All men are created equal, except slaves, Native Americans, and other people of color. Native Americans were slaughtered in the name of progress and

mm

to contaminate

dd

destination

In California, Chinese immigration was prohibited by exclusion laws until the 20th century. The Alien Land Act of 1913 prohibited Japanese immigrants from owning property.

Housing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, whatever, was legal and common in California until the mid-1960s. A heroic Governor Pat Brown, a skittish Democratic-controlled legislature, and ultimately the California

High Council

and we

Supreme Court Supreme Court Justices

prohibited discrimination in the sale and rental of houses.

On July 4

e

, 1776, certainly not all Americans were created equal. And today they still haven’t arrived. But we have made good progress in leveling the playing field of life by taking steps

F

founders could never have imagined.

Back to the Conservative court’s historic affirmative action ruling last week: A vote of 6 to 3 struck down university policies that use race as a factor in deciding which students are admitted.

Many universities have focused too much on race, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. claimed.

They have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not the best challenges, skills accumulated or lessons learned, but the color of their skin, Roberts wrote for the majority. Our political history does not tolerate that choice.

He also wrote that a person’s race should never be used against them during the admissions process.

My layman’s interpretation of that: For example, a white or Asian-American applicant should not be denied entry solely for the purpose of making room for a black or Latino student.

For the minority, Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote: The majority view of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist as long as it is ignored.

Affirmative action advocates say admission to a prestigious university is an invaluable aid in pursuing a successful graduate career and helps mitigate generations of systemic racism.

For the record, I have always believed that we should not fight discrimination by discriminating.

However, it is uncomfortable to side with this far-right court formed by Donald Trump, the most loathsome president in history.

Given our political polarization, I suspect that if affirmative action could be put on the California ballot next year, it could very well be passed. Voters would probably think, If Trump is against affirmative action, it must be good policy.

It is a paradox that this deep blue state voted twice against affirmative action in public education, contracts and employment based on race, ethnicity and gender.

The first time was in 1996. The campaign was extremely dirty. Affirmative action supporters ran TV ads equating opponents with Ku Klux Klansmen in white robes and hoods. That failed. Californians voted by a 9 percentage point margin to ban affirmative action.

Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, the legislature placed a measure on the 2020 ballot to reinstate affirmative action. It lost overwhelmingly by 14 percentage points.

So when Governor Gavin Newsom ranted against the court’s ruling last week, it sounded awkward because, after all, the justices had essentially voted as Californians did three years earlier.

Right-wing activists, including those donning robes, are trying to take us back to the era of book bans and segregated campuses, Newsom explained.

While the road to equal opportunities is now narrow for millions of students[California] Campus doors remain open to anyone willing to work hard and our commitment to diversity, equity and equal opportunity has never been stronger.

But in terms of affirmative action, California voters with Florida are a state whose conservative policies Newsom obsessively denounces.

California has always been proud

on

be a national leader on breakthrough issues. And it’s clearly on affirmative action, whether Newsom likes it or not.

In fact, other states could learn a lot from California on how to diversify their universities without race-based affirmative action.

As Times education writers Teresa Watanabe and Debbie Truong reported, the University of California campuses have made remarkable progress. Black and Latino students represented 43% of the admitted freshman class of Californians for Fall 2022, compared to only about 20% before affirmative action was banned a quarter of a century ago.

We still struggle with the question of how far one person should be allowed to sidestep another person in the pursuit of happiness. It is a question that is guaranteed to generate political fireworks.