Daily Inspiration Quote by Marvin Olasky

“Still” is doing the heavy lifting here. It signals a speaker who knows the cultural tide is noisy, litigious, and emotionally charged, yet wants to present his position as steady rather than reactive. Marvin Olasky’s phrasing isn’t a battle cry; it’s a resume line for a particular kind of public intellectual: the educator who frames controversial policy as a matter of method, not malice.

The sentence is engineered to sound reasonable. “Favor” is softer than “oppose,” and “alternatives” is a strategic placeholder: it implies there are workable, fair-minded tools on the table without naming any that could be attacked. The subtext is: I’m not against equity; I’m against this mechanism. That distinction matters because race-based preferences sit at the intersection of moral urgency and constitutional argument. By shifting the focus to “governmental” action, Olasky tightens the target to state power, inviting a small-government or colorblind-law reading while sidestepping debates about private institutions or the broader history that made preferences politically legible in the first place.

“Race-based preferences” is also a loaded frame. It compresses disparate practices (outreach, holistic review, set-asides) into a single, suspicious-sounding category, priming the reader to see policy as favoritism rather than remedy. In the post-affirmative-action era shaped by court scrutiny and campus backlash, the line functions as a rhetorical safe harbor: it offers disapproval without overt antagonism, and it asks to be judged by temperament (measured, consistent) rather than by the consequences of whichever “alternatives” would replace the current approach.