Racial Preferences and College Admissions: The Tsunami is NOT Coming

Despite a lot of huffing and puffing from the pundits in the immediate reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision that race can no longer be a criteria for college admissions, the response from the general public has been “remarkably muted” (Brookings Institute, William Galston, 7/7/23). 

That’s because most Americans, and strikingly,  most blacks and Hispanics, support the Court’s decision. According to a poll conducted by The Economist/YouGov, Americans who “strongly favor” the decision outweigh those who “strongly oppose” by a 28% margin, 46% to 18%. Young people aged 18-29 back the Court’s decision by nearly a 2-1 margin, 49% to 26%. Among minorities who might benefit from racial preference in admissions, black Americans support the Court’s decision 44% to 36%, and Hispanic Americans, 45% to 30%. 

I believe these numbers reflect the feeling that, for the most part, racially based admissions programs have failed to significantly advance the cause of racial equality—some would argue, to the extent they tarnish the achievements of successful minorities—they’ve even been destructive of that end. The Pew Research Center reports that only 1 in 5 black respondents believe they’ve been helped by affirmative action in admissions and hiring practices. Eleven current states, including California, have already disallowed racial preference in admissions, and to the extent that racial preferences are still relevant, they apply principally to our nation’s most selective, most elite universities, affecting a very small number. 

Justice Thomas argued these points in his concurring opinion. Racial preference in admissions policies, he contended, do nothing to increase the overall number of blacks and Hispanics able to get into college but instead “simply redistribute individuals” among colleges and universities, “placing some into more competitive institutions than they otherwise would have attended” and where they may be less likely to succeed academically. And if they do succeed, Thomas wrote, they may still be harmed by the stigma that race-conscious admissions programs create—that they got in on a pass. (Thomas has dealt with that stigma most of his life). Rather than solving existing issues of inequality, Thomas argued, these policies themselves divide students and “lead to increasing racial polarization and friction.”

It appears that a majority of our country, including blacks and Hispanics, agree.

But will this decision truly change admission policies or simply cause universities to shuffle the deck differently? In a colorful interview with Anthony Caravale, Director of Georgetown’s “Center on Education and the Workforce” and an economist (“Harvard Ruling Will Put Spotlight on College Elitism,” The 74, July 10, 2023), Caravale says this decision will “rip the band aid off” the truth, and expose the socio-economic elitism of the universities. Universities need money, lots of it, so flush enrollments and strong tuition streams are critical. Racial preferences give selective universities masks that increase their pool of prospective students and project them as progressive and generous, when in fact the vast majority of their minority students come from families who are wealthy, similar to the rest of the student body. Universities collect as much as they can from them for the “privilege” of enrolling.  

“Filthy rich” schools such as Harvard will be OK, Caravale predicts, since they have the means to re-orient their admissions preferences toward social class and away from race. If they intentionally aim for poorer students they will have a more diverse student body. But only a few schools have multi billion dollar endowments, and so cannot afford comprehensive affirmative action programs truly aimed at social class. They need the majority of their students to pay full freight or thereabouts.  This is the reason universities so jealously protect legacy admissions policies, completely contrary to merit based standards. Wealthy graduates beget wealthy progeny! And grateful parents and grandparents give generously! But in a world without racial preferences, Caravale says, selective universities will be exposed for what they’ve always been: institutions that serve the socio-economically elite, on whom they are dependent, with little “diversity” to suggest otherwise.   

The problem is that Americans despise elitism—especially white elitism— and in this new light of day, the reputation of these universities will suffer greatly. Carvale predicts two year institutions and trade schools will be the beneficiaries. 

But I don’t think selective schools will allow this to happen. These are multi-million dollar—in many cases, multi-billion dollar—businesses, run by smart people whose jobs are to protect their school’s market share. Built within the Court’s argument is a giant loophole that universities will exploit to maintain the status quo: While the Courts will not allow race as a general category to boost minority enrollment, applicants may write in their essays how their experiences as an individual, especially instances of racism, have shaped their lives, and universities may use these subjective experiences to assess the quality of an individual’s character and admissions worthiness.

Carvale is sharply critical of this workaround:

“What disgusts me… is that they’re demanding that minority applicants humiliate themselves. The best way for a minority to get into Harvard now — it’s allowed in this opinion — is to write an uessay about the hardship you’ve suffered; that your parents abused you, that your neighborhood abused you, that you got beaten up going to school every day, and that was good for your character. I find that humiliating, to turn on everyone you know and care about so that you can get into Harvard. Telling your story in this way is kind of like racial porn: “Let’s see who’s got the sorriest story to tell, and we’ll let them in!”

But I am reasonably sure that the universities will find a way to frame these kind of questions in a way that is less humiliating than Carvale predicts. They will ask essays of all applicants, for example, to discuss incidences of social injustice they have encountered personally or have witnessed, and what they’ve done in response or how they have grown from their encounter. Essays will be given much more weight in the admissions decision. And that will allow universities to continue to keep their student bodies as diverse (and as wealthy) as they want them to be— in a way that is explicitly permitted by the Court.

University presidents, in their initial response to the Court’s ruling, have already said as much. This statement from Liz Magill, president of Penn, is representative: 

“This decision will require changes in our admissions practices. But our values and beliefs will not change. Bringing together individuals who have wide-ranging experiences that inform their approach to their time at Penn is fundamental to excellent teaching, learning, and research. In full compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision, we will seek ways to admit individual students who will contribute to the kind of exceptional community that is essential to Penn’s educational mission.”

Don’t expect the institutional behavior of universities to change much due to the Court’s decision. There’s no tsunami coming. In the end, schools have too many vested interests, and too much money on the line, to push against the status quo. 

College Admissions and Race: The Recent Supreme Court Decision

It is frustrating to hear the “talking heads” discuss the recent Supreme Court decision to eliminate race as a consideration for college admissions. Most critique the result, either celebrating the decision or making dire prophecies of what will now occur, without any presentation of the Court’s argument.  So I spent this morning trying to better understand the arguments myself. 

Here’s my quick summary: 

Earlier Court decisions had allowed race as a category to factor into admissions decisions, but only if it survived “strict scrutiny”—that there was a compelling government interest, and that the compelling interest was narrowly tailored. (Regents of University of California vs Bakke, 1978 ). Justice Powell, writing for the majority, held that diversity was a legitimate educational goal for a university, but because “racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect,  and antipathy toward them was deeply rooted in our nation’s constitutional and demographic history,” these programs were limited: universities could not use racial “quotas,” nor could they use race as a “negative” to exclude individuals from consideration. Race could only operate as a “plus” for an applicant. 

The Bakke decision continued to be litigated in the lower courts, such that the issue found its way back to the Supreme Court (Grutter vs. Bollinger, 2003). Grutter re-affirmed that student diversity was a legitimate justification for race-based admissions and also re-affirmed the limitations that Bakke decision imposed. Those limitations, Grutter stated, were intended to guard against two dangers that all race based government action portends: first, the risk of stereotyping (assuming that all minorities will always or consistently express some minority viewpoint on any issue) and that race will be used not only as a “plus” but a negative—to discriminate against those against racial groups that were not the beneficiaries of a race-based preference.  Finally, Grutter said, that at some point, race-based admissions programs should end: “Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend” the Constitutions’s unambiguous guarantee of equal protection. Accordingly, it expressed the expectation that in 25 years, the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” 

Fast forward to the present, when Harvard and the University of North Caroline were sued for their raced based admission preferences. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority,  ruled that the two universities’ race-based admissions policies did not abide by these earlier Court limitations: 

“Respondents' race-based admissions systems fail to comply with Grutter’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype…. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions program cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.” 

As evidence of the "zero-sum" effect,  the Court points to the impact of racial preference for blacks on Asian applicants. At North Carolina, Roberts notes that in the top decile of applicants, 80% of black applicants are admitted, vs. 70% of Asian applicants. In the second highest decile, 83% of black applicants are admitted, vs. 47% of Asian applicants. And in the third decile, 77% of black applicants are admitted vs. just 34% of Asian applicants. 

Further, Roberts says race-based admissions programs require stereotyping.  The justification for race-based admissions is that they bring a diversity of thought and perspective into the educational community. But Roberts notes “when a university admits students on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that students of a particular race, because of their race, think alike.”

Finally, Roberts notes that though 20 years had passed since Grutter, there was nothing which indicated that raced based admissions policies would end in five more years, as  suggested by the Grutter decision. 

Accordingly, the Courts voted 6-3 in SFA vs. Havard to eliminate race as a general category for admissions decisions. It is important to emphasize race is no longer a factor as a category,  I believe. The Courts note that as a category, race doesn’t always predict disadvantage, as in the case of upper or middle class minorities whose children may go to excellent private schools, with access to A.P. courses, tutors, etc. Per diversity goals, prior to this decision, those students could receive preference over other ethnicities, even if applicants from those other ethnicities were poor or disadvantaged,  without access to the same educational opportunities. That outcome, Roberts writes, is repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause. But is IS OK, Roberts explicitly states, to consider the impact race may have had on that individual, if racism has played a factor in his or her life: 

“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life as long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. (But) many universities have too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Judge Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, writes: 

“Racialism simply cannot be undone by different or more racialism. Instead, the solution announced in the second founding is incorporated into our Constitution: that we are all equal, and should be treated equally before the law without regard to race. Only that promise can allow us to look past our differing skin colors and identities and see each other for what we truly are: individuals with unique thoughts, perspectives and goals, but with equal dignity and equal rights under the law.”

Critics of this Court's decision have been particularly vicious of Judge Thomas, accusing him of hypocrisy, saying “he’s burning down the very ladder which allowed him to become only the second black man to be on the Supreme Court.” (Steven A. Smith, et al). But those critics have either not read this decision or are simply unwilling to apply it to Thomas. Thomas was the second of three children, born to a farm worker and domestic helper in rural Georgia, both of whom spoke Gullah as their first language. They were so poor, they had no indoor plumbing. His father left him when he was two, and after a fire burned down their home, he was taken in and raised by his grandparents, also farmers.  At the age of ten, he began helping his grandparents on their farm, and he worked his way up the ladder from there, prioritizing his education.  Overcoming those disadvantages reveals a quality of character which the Courts explicitly say is a legitimate set of facts for a university to consider. 

In essence, the Court is saying that applicants should be judged "by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" to use Martin Luther King's elegant phrase. Does racism still exist in America? Sadly, yes. Does racism suppress some students' opportunities for higher level educational achievement? Sadly, of course it does. But does racism have equal impact on everyone within that same race, regardless of socio-economic standing or family background? Of course not. When and where it has impacted someone, the Courts affirm the right of the applicant to explain how they've been shaped by it and grown from it, and the right of the universities to take these statements into account in their assessment of the individual's character. 

The Courts are insisting that applicants be judged individually, according to the unique circumstances of their lives, rather than by a blanket category. That distinction seems like a step forward for everyone. 

Confidence, Courage to do Something Great!

These are my remarks to the graduating 8th graders of Prince of Peace School, May 19, 2023.

Good evening, and congratulations to all of you.

I know that tonight feels like the end of something—a completion, and for sure, it’s partly that. You are no longer elementary school students. 

But it’s more than that. Another name for graduation is “Commencement.” To “commence” something means to “begin,” to “start something new.” Tonight marks a new beginning for you. It’s a commissioning ceremony that “sends you forth” to do great things.

Because really, that’s what we want for you. Our mission statement says it clearly, that we hope you will become “faithful to Jesus Christ, prepared for high school, and confident you can do great things through Christ who strengthens you.”

For just a few moments, allow me to speak as if I were your high school principal next year, because I was one for many years. Here’s what we need. We need students willing lead other students to do great things. We believe you’re capable of that.

Frankly, our culture doesn’t. It underestimates you as students, so it waters down what it expects of you in the classroom and inflates your grades. It tells you that you are not capable of virtue or chastity in your relationships, so it preaches “safe sex.” It tells you, bless your heart, that you can’t handle the truth that some people are better athletes than you are, so it guarantees trophies for everyone!

The cultural message is that you’re a fragile little snowflake that needs to be delicately handled. You are puny. Mediocre. You are not capable of greatness.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE! It’s not our belief here at POP. And I am certain it’s not what JPII believes. What BL believes. What Jesuit or Ursuline believe.

We think, instead, that you can be like a sophomore girl in my old school who went on a mission trip with her parents and her church to a village in Africa. She didn’t really want to go, but her parents made her. But when she got there, she was immersed in complete poverty, and it changed her. She noticed that some families were doing better than others—and the difference, surprisingly, was whether or not the family owned a goat. Goats are a great blessing to the poor. Villagers get milk and cheese from goats. They require very little maintenance— no special diet, just grass and shrubs. They have two gestation periods/year, so they can reproduce quickly, and families with healthy goats can breed them. Children whose families owned  goats are considerably healthier.

So two years later, when her Church decided to re-visit the village, this now senior girl was eager to return. But she had an idea. “Mr. Weber, would it be OK if I did a fund-raiser in the school for goats? They cost about 100/each, and they make an amazing difference to the villagers.” “Of course,” I said. She then raised $8500, and was able to give goats to 85 families when she revisited. This one 18 year old girl changed 85 family’s lives!

We think you can be like a freshman boy I knew. When he was in middle school, he began helping out at Catholic Social Services with his parents. He learned that for many poor children who lived in our county, nutrition was a real problem—the only decent meal they’d get every day was the federally sponsored school lunch. “But what happens on weekends?” he began to ask.  Exactly the problem! So he started a “backpack program” at a grade school with a high concentration of poor families. On Thursdays, he’d stuff backpacks with meals for kids to take home on Fridays, which he would pay for through donations he solicited and contributions of food from local grocery stores. He’s a senior now, and continued this through high school, bringing in more high school students so that he could expand and serve more students. He is a difference-maker!

But these kids are no different than you!

Next year, find something you’re passionate about that helps other people. I spoke to one of you, who said she likes working with handicapped children. Awesome—how can you get your classmates involved in that? Is there a club that already does that? If not, can you form a club? Can this club visit handicapped children on a regular basis? Throw them a big Christmas party each year? What else?

Some have told me you like tutoring younger children. Amazing! Find some way to encourage your classmates to come with you when you do that. Perhaps there’s a grade school you can visit on a once/week basis. Ask your principal if you can form a club, give it a cool name, get something going. 

And I’m sure there are many outstanding clubs like this already that you can join. Seek out those clubs. You will find amazing other students there and become close friends, making a difference together !

Some of you are athletes. How can you use that gift to witness to your faith and encourage your peers to live Christian lives?

There is a young lady who graduated last night at the school I left to come here. Last spring, as a junior, she won the state championship in the 100 meter, 200 meter and 400 meter races. I logged onto the school’s website to see how she did this year, and sure enough, she was state champion again in all three—a 6 time state champion, the most decorated athlete in the school’s young history! But this year, when she was getting photographed for the school’s social media site, she used it as a chance to give “All Glory to God.” Powerful!

So yes, tonight is a celebration. But it’s also a commissioning ceremony.


Now for sure, you’re going from the very top of the totem pole as 8th graders to the very bottom as freshmen, so you’ll have to fit in just a little bit. No self respecting senior is going to let a freshman strut around like he or she owns the place. But don’t let “fitting in” be the thesis statement of your life. Have the courage to shine during your high school careers.

Here’s what author Marianne Williamson says:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?'

Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

Amen! When we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to shine! Our liberation liberates others. 

One final remark:

We will miss you. There are teachers, staff and administrators here who have known you a long time, who remember you when you were children, and who loved and nurtured you into the young men and women you are becoming. Dream big! Do great things! Change the world! But don’t forget us. We’re not perfect, and where we’ve made mistakes, please forgive us. We love you and are proud that we are now your alma mater. You have been, and always will be, a Prince of Peace Star!

God bless you.

Sailing Forward. Looking Back.

Let us be open to new paradigms and possibilities! But let us do so with prudence and deliberation. The problem with navigating our vessels through the powerful currents of contemporary opinion is they are pushed and pulled at the same rate as everyone else's vessels, making it impossible for us to detect the true distance and speed of our travels.  We need reference points alongside the shoreline, outside of the current, to measure how far and how fast we’re moving. 

This, it seems to me, is the value of the tradition of our Church. We are quick to marginalize the Church’s claims as “historically conditioned" and "anachronistic", but like the “pot calling the kettle black”, our instant, casual dismissiveness of the Church's claims reveals how beholden we are to the conditioning of the present day.

Our reflexive reaction to “Tradition” shouldn’t be that of contempt. In his book Orthodoxy, G.K Chesterton reminds us that tradition represents the established wisdom of our ancestors against the vicissitudes of what’s faddish, a “democracy of the dead,” (which) “refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” 

We do well to respect such wisdom, even if science or other disciplines compel us to stretch beyond our previously held views.

Cloud of Witnesses

One of the great blessings of my life is the many good people I've come to know, mostly due to my career in Catholic education.  Since 2005, I’ve had the honor of paying tribute to many of them upon their death. 

We had three unexpected snow days this week here in Dallas which has given me some time to reminisce, going through old posts, re-reading the eulogies I wrote at the time—nineteen people, as it turns out.  I re-share them here with the date of my original posting, as a way of re-celebrating their lives,  in gratitude for their example and friendship. 

Fr. Michael Labadie (July, 2005) - Fr. Labadie was a former student at Catholic High who was later ordained and then assigned as a teacher when I was principal.

Coach Tim Turner (April 2006)—Coach Tim and I coached with and against each other for years. He coached two of my sons, and later became our middle school football coach at Catholic High. 

Justin Braswell (June, 2006)—Justin was a junior at Montgomery Catholic who died prematurely due to complications of muscular dystrophy.

Carol Cassidy (September, 2008)—Carol was a revered volunteer at Pope John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, TN

Grandma Marie Sprague (November, 2009)—My mom's mom, she was a dynamic, irresistible force for good in the life of our family. 

Jane Everest (August, 2012)—My high school English teacher at McGill-Toolen. I was asked by her family to give the eulogy at her funeral. 

Virginia Mayhan (February 2013)—My mother-in-law, she was a saintly, strong woman who put her family first throughout her life. 

Alice Ortega (January, 2014)—Catholic High’s dynamic English teacher of nearly forty years, a tour-de-force in the life of her many students.

Dad (March 2015)—Written nearly one year after his death, a wonderful father and person of great faith and joy. My brother and sisters regard him as the finest man we've known. 

Sr. Martha Belke (April,  2015)—A Loretto sister, long time Chemistry and IPS teacher at Catholic High. She was my mentor in my first year of teaching and a powerful example to me throughout my young career.

Rev. Holcombe Pryor (September, 2015)—Long time, deeply respected band director at McGill-Toolen and father to one of my close friends during my time as a student there.

Grandpa Albert Sprague (December 2015)—My grandfather and a Naval hero, I wrote this almost forty years after his death. 

Rusty Cowles (December, 2016)—Rusty was a ten year old boy, killed tragically in a 4-wheel drive accident. I write primarily about the witness of his parents' faith, the beauty of the funeral mass,  and the outpouring of love from the Catholic community of Baldwin County

Bishop David Choby (June 2017)—Bishop of Nashville during my 7 year stint as head of school at Pope John Paul II. He became a close friend during that time.

Caroline Berry (November 2018)—Caroline enrolled at St. Michael as a freshman and then found out around Christmas she had cancer. She fought it bravely for two years. I believe she is the first Cardinal student  to become a saint. 

Gerald Vrazel  (June 2019)—Gerald was a major influence on me when I was a teen-ager. He was one of the finest Christian men I’ve known in my life. 

Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb (July 2020)—Archbishop of Mobile during my entire time as teacher, principal and president of Catholic High. I admired him deeply. 

Mike McLaren (December, 2020)—Dean of Students at Pope John Paul II and one of the true co-founders of the school. One of the major figures that contributed to the school’s  sterling reputation. 

Dr. Tom Doyle (September 2021)— My mentor and friend, the most brilliant, passionate and generous Catholic educator I’ve ever known.

Rest in Peace, Pope Benedict (1927-2022)

Pope Benedict passed away at the age of 95, on the last day of 2022. His funeral will be this Thursday, January 5. He was pope from April of 2005 to February 2013, the successor to (now saint) Pope John Paul II and predecessor of Pope Francis. Though not as personally “charismatic” as JPII, nor perceived to have the “pastoral warmth” of Francis, he was a man of great faith and intellect, having published over 65 books on matters of theology and spirituality, many as a professor of theology before being elected pope. He was one of the pivotal players of Vatican II in the 1960’s, both during the Council and in the decades-long discussions that followed.  As pope he wrote three important encyclicals, four apostolic exhortations and gave thousands of homilies and talks, many of which are available on line. 

 

It would be ludicrous to try and summarize the immenseness of his thinking in an article, and I am not expert enough to have the hubris to even try. At the same time, it would be a shame not to at least get a “taste” of his thinking this week, as we prepare for his funeral on Thursday. The best way to do that, I think, is to read some of what he said himself! 

 

Here, then, are a few curated quotes that speak powerfully to me. He gave his whole heart and his prodigious mind to the Lord, and I believe his thinking will anchor Church thinking for many generations to come. 

 

Regarding theology:

 

"We have to ask questions. Those who do not ask do not get a reply. But I would add that for theology, in addition to the courage to ask, we also need the humility to listen to the answers that the Christian faith gives us; the humility to perceive in these answers their reasonableness and thus to make them newly accessible to our time and to ourselves."
—Speech, March 21, 2007

On relativism:

"Having a clear faith based on the Creed of the church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be 'tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine,' seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
—Homily, April 18, 2005

On freedom:

"The person who abandons himself totally in God's hands does not become God's puppet, a boring 'yes man'; he does not lose his freedom. Only the person who entrusts himself totally to God finds true freedom, the great, creative immensity of the freedom of good."
—Homily, Dec. 8, 2005

On religious freedom:

"It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves — their faith — in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one's rights. ... The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order."
—Speech at the United Nations, April 18, 2008

On the Sacrament of Confession:

"It is very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true: our sins are always the same, but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week, even if the dirt is always the same, in order to live in cleanliness, in order to start again. Otherwise, the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. Something similar can be said about the soul."
—Response to children's questions, Oct. 15, 2005

On abortion: 

"The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -– it is the very opposite."
—Speech in Austria, Sept. 7, 2007

On setting goals: 

“The world offers you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” (unknown)

On becoming weary:

“There are times when the burden of need and our own limitations might tempt us to become discouraged. But precisely then we are helped by the knowledge that, in the end, we are only instruments in the Lord's hands; and this knowledge frees us from the presumption of thinking that we alone are personally responsible for building a better world. In all humility we will do what we can, and in all humility we will entrust the rest to the Lord. It is God who governs the world, not we. We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength. To do all we can with what strength we have, however, is the task which keeps the good servant of Jesus Christ always at work: “The love of Christ urges us on” (2 Cor 5:14).” --God is Love: Deus Caritas Est