I don’t think Chemerinsky is wrong, but I have my own supplemental theory. Liberals value integration as a good in itself because liberals, like conservatives, value color-blindness, albeit in a different sense. Conservatives believe that GOVERNMENT decision-makers should always or almost always be color-blind in the sense that government should not make decisions that turn on race. Liberals believe that INDIVIDUALS should be color-blind but see ubiquitous evidence that they are not. In deciding where to live, with whom to socialize and all sorts of other matters, individuals make decisions based on race.
It seems to me, that more and more often than not, those decisions in which we judge a group as such, that is not by or on individual merits but by group we base them not on race, but culture. For example, when viewing an individual and pre-judging him in a negative fashion I’m more influenced by cultural cues than racial ones. Mr Schraub is fond of supporting race based, i.e., non-color blind policy. But, if one altered his “race” based logic to culture/sub-culture based would the same theory follow. That is, if one found that for promotion, schooling, judicial/enforcement and other criteria negative prejudice was greatest for the “biker” subculture. Would it therefore make sense to give “bikers” the greatest prejudicial advantages from a governmental standpoint (of course setting aside the question of whether that particular subculture gives a hoot about the government in the first place except as an adversary).
In the past I’d asked Mr Schraub how me might justify supporting race based governmental policy when there are substantial identifiable non-black and even white subcultures arguably worse off than many black ones, e.g., the Appalachian rural communities. Or more pointedly, “How do explain to an appalachian single mother why somebody else gets some particular advantage?” I’d left this on a comment, and didn’t ever see if he responded, for which I apologize. However, if Mr Schraub reads this, I’d ask that he might respond (or point out/paste his earlier response) because honestly I’m interested in how those who support non-color blind policies respond to giving something when there are those who on average are worse off but not excluded by the very nature of the non-color blindness of the policy. And any other readers, who might support non-color blind governmental policies might chime in as well.