Ben Shapiro slams affirmative action, liberal justices.

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro Uses Baseball Analogy to Refute Dissenting Justices

In a landmark Supreme Court case that rolled back affirmative action policies at universities, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote dissents that were refuted by Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro using a baseball analogy.

The logic that Jackson and Sotomayor want to endorse essentially states that in order to rectify past discrimination, current discrimination must be utilized. Let’s apply that example to baseball to see how idiotic and counterproductive this is.

Imagine, for a moment, that…

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 30, 2023

Shapiro applied the justices’ logic in favor of affirmative action to baseball to demonstrate its flaws. He argued that artificially boosting black participation in the long run actually harms racial tensions and equality, rather than helping them.

To illustrate his point, Shapiro proposed a hypothetical scenario: instead of Major League Baseball (MLB) breaking the color line by recruiting the best players from the Negro Leagues, they would have changed the rules of the game. Black pitchers would only need to throw two strikes to strike out white batters, and black batters would get four strikes before striking out.

Shapiro emphasized that this approach would have decreased the quality of baseball and exacerbated racial tensions, contradicting the goals claimed by Sotomayor and Jackson.

He questioned whether such changes would improve the quality of baseball, make black players more competitive in the future, or exacerbate racial tensions. Echoing Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, Shapiro concluded that the way to remedy past discrimination is not through present discrimination. He argued that standards should be based on merit, not race, in both baseball and college admissions.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

Shapiro clarified that his tweet should not be misconstrued as being against challenging policies that cause specific harm. He distinguished between seeking redress for specific damages caused by specific policies and implementing a regime of racial “correctives” that only worsen the situation.