Posts Tagged ‘affirmative action’

Justice in “The Mistake by the Lake!”

March 19, 2010

Cleveland that is!  From, by way of James Edwards at The Political Cesspool:

“CLEVELAND, Ohio — A former Bedford Heights city employee who claimed she was discriminated against by Mayor Fletcher Berger and others because of her race and disability was awarded $1.83 million in pay and damages by a federal jury on Monday.”…

In the 20 months after Berger took office, 38 of the 41 workers the city hired in its community life department, which includes the recreation center, were African-American, Hinners said.”

Wow…a jury agreed to that?   I wonder where the actual trial was held.  I know there’s no way in hell they found one of those inherently evil “all white jury” ‘s in a rat-hole like Cleveland.  I know there are some misguided whites out there who still think that it’s “dishonorable” for them to file discrimination lawsuits…I used to be one of them myself.  But it’s not about “being better” than minorities, it’s about competing with them for survival in a system rigged to ensure your displacement.  Yes, there is something inherently dishonorable about bringing brass knuckles to a fair boxing match with an impartial referee, and a well-intentioned and unarmed opponent.  But there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing a baseball bat to a ring in an empty arena where your opponent has a baseball bat, and the ref wants you dead, even if they still call it a “boxing match.”  You’re not “cheating” by filing reverse discrimination lawsuits because it’s not a fair contest to begin with.  Bringing a knife to a gunfight doesn’t make you brave…just stupid.  James Edwards’ thoughts:  “Better cash in while you can, white folks.” 

My thoughts:

“File a complaint…what do you have to lose?…pride?…you think being on unemployment won’t take that away from you anyway?  Perhaps the main complaint is that men don’t want to feel like “whiners” by saying they were discriminated against, but just remember, minorities and women do this all the time.  Not doing the same thing in return doesn’t make you better than them when the result is losing your livelihood.  Somebody who willingly agrees to bring only a knife to a gunfight isn’t brave…they’re stupid.  Even if you can’t prove that you were chosen to be laid-off because you are white and/or male…who cares…file anyway.  Clog the system with so many complaints that it overloads!  Even if your claim is found to be unsupported, the 5 seconds that it takes under-qualified and over-paid EEOC government employee Shaniqua to sigh in disgust, crumble it up, and throw it away, is 5 seconds that she now won’t have available to harass an honest white employer facing a bogus discrimination lawsuit.  File! Baby! File!”

$1.83 million…looks like Cleveland won’t be getting that new “Hate Crimes Unit” for its Police Department or “Museum of Tolerance” after all.  Who am I kidding…they’ll still get them.  It’s just that now, whites in Kansas and Montana will pay for them in the form of a federal grant. 

“38 of the 41 workers the city hired in its community life department, which includes the recreation center, were African-American”…If you eliminated every government job, every job in “Human Resources,” and every job with the words “community” or “diversity” in the title, the unemployment rate for black women would be like 98%.


Arbitration Clauses: Protection for White Employers?

February 24, 2010

Arbitration Clauses:  Protection for White Employers?

I was recently reading through Fundamentals of Business Law:  Summarized Cases, 7th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz.  The subject of arbitration in employment disputes came up.  Arbitration is where, rather than one party formally suing another in court, the two parties take their issue to a neutral and private, jointly agreed upon, 3rd party who hears both sides, and renders a legally binding (in most cases) decision. One option that employers have at their disposal is to include arbitration clauses in employment contracts.  For the most part, these are agreements that if either the employer or the employee have a non-criminal legal dispute arise between the two, they will have it settled by a private arbiter rather than a court of law.  So if an arbitration clause exists in a contract, yet one party still tries to sue in court, will the courts refuse to hear the case?  Obviously exceptions exist, such as if the clause appears to be too one sided (“unconscionable”), but by in large, the answer appears to be Yes.  But what about “discrimination” lawsuits, those legal magic bullets that seem to turn the Constitution and hundreds of years of accepted principles of jurisprudence on their heads. Wikipedia reports that “the Federal Arbitration Act requires that where the parties have agreed to arbitrate, they must do so in lieu of going to court, provided that the proceeding is fundamentally fair — that is, equivalent in fairness to the public courts.”  Fundamentals of Business Law seems to concur.  The book even lists a case, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, where an employee with an arbitration clause tried to sue his employer for discrimination in state court, and the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was valid, and that the suit should not be heard.  One acknowledged exception to arbitration clauses is to contracts involving interstate transportation workers.  According to the book, “arbitration is normally simpler, speedier, and less costly than litigation.”  I checked the website of Grand Valley State University, which tracks some employment arbitration cases.  Of their non-union arbitration cases listed, dealing with the topic of various types of employment discrimination, the arbiters seemed to side overwhelmingly with the employers.  Although some arbiters found that the employer did not have just cause to terminate an employee, with the question of whether or not discrimination occurred, the results seemed to go something like 16 to 1 in favor of the employer.  I’ll admit that I don’t know how representative this sample is, but it doesn’t seem entirely implausible that it mirrors national results.  In contrast, when such suits are brought into court, depending on the race of the judge, a ratio of only about between 1 to 1  and 4 to 1 cases ended in favor of the employer.  So arbitration clauses seem to be generally enforceable, and are more likely to result in quicker, less expensive, more favorable outcomes for employers accused of discrimination.  My suggestion to white employers:  Obviously, consult a lawyer first…but if they see no problem with it, make all employees sign employment contracts, and include arbitration clauses in them that require all discrimination disputes to be brought before a private arbiter.  This seems like a fairly effective way to minimize exposure to the Reverend Al and his bunch, so at first I was surprised that not more employers choose to take this route.  Then I remembered…almost all hiring/employment considerations at large institutions fall under the control of the “human resources”-diversity-industrial complex these days.  The black woman in charge of HR at your company doesn’t want to minimize the organization’s exposure to legal liability.  She just wants to help wage her little piece of the race war.  Not including arbitration clauses in employment contracts is a good way of sandbagging her enemy’s defenses.  Not that her superiors really care.  Remember the first law of workplace diversity in Corporate America…given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.

Mitigating Damage: Corporate America’s 5 Folkways of Promoting Unqualified Minorities

February 21, 2010

So I was recently having a conversation with a friend.  Somehow the subject came up about a recent occurrence at his work place.  Apparently, the head of his workplace’s Human Resources department, who supervised about five other people, got “promoted” from “Manager of Human Resources” to…wait for it… “Director of Human Resources.”  Apparently at his place of employment, “Directors” typically supervise divisions of about 20+ employees, while “Managers” are subordinates of Directors, and supervise smaller, more job-specific, units of about…oh…say 5-10 employees.  So “Manager of Human Resources” would seem like an appropriate title right?  Why the fancy new business card with accompanying higher salary and extra perks when no additional responsibility was added.  Well, the head of Human Resources (where else would such inefficiency take place?) was a woman, and apparently there weren’t enough non-white male “Directors” to serve the needs of diversity, so a new Director position was created to alleviate the hard bigotry of meritocracy.  What I just described is what’s commonly referred to as a “promotion in place.”  It’s one method at Corporate America’s disposal to satisfy the conflicting goals of having minorities in high positions and efficient organizational performance.  So let’s say that you’re a corporate executive, and you’ve been told that you need more non-white males in positions of leadership.  But, the reason you don’t have more non-white males in leadership positions is that none are qualified, and…you are still responsible for the efficient functioning of your department!  What do you do? Here are five commonly-used techniques for dealing with these conflicting goals:

1) The “Promotion-in-Place”

As described above, the unqualified minority is kept in the same job with the same functions and responsibilities…the only thing that changes is the title of the job…and the accompanying salary and benefits (an increase of course).  Example – An unqualified minority (UQM) was the sole sales representative for the Northeast Region, with a title of “Northeast Regional Sales Representative,” and he, along with the other regional sales representatives, reported to the “National Sales Manager.”  The UQM is now “Northeast Regional Sales Manager”…still the sole sales person for the Northeast region…with no subordinates or increased responsibilities…who still reports to the “National Sales Manager”…but with a better sounding title and a pay raise.  The assault on fairness and squandered resources (in the form of an undeserved salary increase) are the main drawbacks here…but hell…those are drawbacks to all of these.  On the plus side, the UQM stays at a position he is probably competent at, and doesn’t have any (more?) responsibilities added to his portfolio that he cannot meet.

2) The “In Charge of Nothing”

I remember reading the assigned textbook for some horrible “Principles of Management” course I was forced to take.  There were several different blurbs and short interviews highlighting different managers from different organizations, and their techniques/”words of wisdom.”  What struck me was that the managers with names that would imply that they were white males, like “John Smith,” had titles like “Director of Marketing,” “Research and Development Manager,” and “Head of Accounting.”  Managers with names that would imply that they were not white males, like “Taikeesha Jackson,” had positions like “Director of Parking Lot Operations”…one woman was the “Director of Facilities,” and went on about how the decisions she made, such as whether or not to put a coy pond in the lobby, were vital to the performance of the organization.  This is an example of the “In Charge of Nothing” a.k.a the I.C.O.N.  Here, the unqualified minority is given a newly created position “in charge of” some minor function of no real necessity to the operations of the organization, like making sure that all multi-page reports are stapled at the top left corner of the page.  In the “con” column, in addition to the wasted resources of the salary/benefits increase, you will also probably have to give them some kind of operating budget for their imaginary “department.”  Additionally, they may begin to take their new “job” seriously, and this could have a negative effect on company operations.  Picture Taikeesha Jackson getting upset about people parking crooked, and calling all employees into the conference room for a 4-hour incoherent rant about “respect.”  That’s four hours of wasted productivity…but hey…you have to let her go ahead with the meeting and maintain the veil of authority.  On the plus side, you didn’t put her in charge of anything that ACTUALLY MATTERS.  At least she isn’t in charge of Sales…and losing accounts because she keeps accusing clients of racism.  This way, the damage that she can cause is only minimal…like catching the parking lot on fire!  In this particular situation, concrete isn’t likely to burn, so I would go with the I.C.O.N!

3) The “One-for-the-Price-of-Two”

The “One-for-the-Price-of-Two” occurs when a UQM is promoted to a newly created position, the responsibilities of which are already covered by a current existing position.  For example, the 6-person Marketing Department reports to the Director of Marketing.  A UQM marketing employee is now promoted to the newly-created position of “Director of Electronic Marketing.”  From this point onward, he will oversee all e-marketing activities, while the Director of Marketing oversees all marketing activities, including e-marketing if need be.  A benefit of this method is that it has the potential to avoid many hard feelings.  After all, the Director of Marketing is not actually being replaced by the undeserving minority, but instead just giving up some of his responsibilities to the unqualified quota-hire.  So while he may be peeved that the quota-hire has the same pay, benefits, and perks, with less responsibility, he can’t be too upset…his work load just got lighter…at least in theory.  The drawback is that you are now basically throwing away whatever the UQM’s salary is and getting absolutely nothing in return, as the job duties were already covered.

4) The “Bump-and-Assist”

The “Bump-and-Assist” may be the most desirable of these options.  Here, a UQM is promoted to a leadership position, and at the same time, a white employee is promoted to a newly-created assistant-leadership position, in order to provide some level of effective leadership, while still allowing the UQM to appear in charge.  For example, the Customer Service Manager previously supervised 6 Customer Service Representatives.  Now that the position has been filled by a UQM, the position of Assistant Manager of Customer Service has been created, and filled with a competent white employee, who the Customer Service Representatives can turn to when they need help, and who can sweep some of the UQM’s bad decisions under the carpet when he/she isn’t looking.  Allowing the UQM to maintain the illusion of control is vital to the successful implementation of this plan.  The drawback, as with the “One-for-the-Price-of-Two,” is that you are now basically throwing away whatever the UQM’s salary is and getting absolutely nothing in return, as the job duties are now really being handled by the white assistant-manager.  But on the plus side, organizational harmony should remain largely in tact.  The qualified white will still get something of a promotion, so feelings won’t be hurt as much as they could have been.

5) The “Hail Mary”

This is, without a doubt, the least desirable of all options.  This is where the powers-that-be, for whatever reason…maybe they believe their own press releases…, actually believe that the UQM is capable of running a large and important division…or even a cash register…and promote/hire them without any hidden support structure.  Big mistake.  This won’t end well.  For an example, just Google “Carly Fiorina Hewlett Packard.” 

You might think that maybe, given such unappealing options, at least some individuals/entities in Corporate America might instead choose to hire a competent white (maybe a…gasp…white male) employee, and just fight any lawsuits that may happen to arise.  You would be wrong.  You obviously have no idea how entrenched political correctness is in Corporate America.  Discrimination lawsuits aren’t the motivation for discriminating against whites…they’re just the excuse given for doing so.  For those big-business shills who always babble about the almighty “Market” and its efficiency, just remember this…given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.

Utah Steps up to the Plate!

February 19, 2010

Via Amren:

Utah House Panel Ok’s Constitutional Amendment to End Affirmative Action

Apparently a proposed constitutional amendment banning affirmative action just passed a Utah House subcommittee, and is now headed for a vote in the full House, where it must be approved by a 2/3rd’s vote.  The state Senate must also approve it by a 2/3rd’s vote.  If this happens, then it still must go before voters, who have to approve it, I’m assuming by a simple majority.

The article states that 50 house members need to vote in favor, and there are 53 Republicans.  Maybe a couple of decades ago that would have made me feel comfortable about passage, but with today’s GOP…well, I don’t expect much. 

On the Senate side, “where Republicans have 21 of 29 seats,”…”Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, predicted HJR24 would clear the Senate with relative ease.”  At least he sounds confident.  Let’s just hope that he’s also accurate at making predictions. 

Here’s a quote from Waddoups:

” “The biggest problem is the quota system at the universities,” Waddoups said. “We’re not getting necessarily the most qualified students there because of it.” ” 

It would have been nice for him to mention that the injustice faced by whites is also a legitimate problem.  But even without that, I’m heartened that he at least admits that AA causes “less qualified” students to get in, rather than arguing against AA on the basis that it “stigmatizes deserving blacks.”

Overall, this is definitely a step in the right direction.  If we can just get those 50 votes in the House…a big “if”…then I like our odds for final passage.  Then we’ll see how implementation and court challenges work themselves out… Keep your fingers crossed!

Decades of Failure: Part 2 – Failed Approaches: The Failure of Persuasion

February 14, 2010

Opponents of racial quotas are no closer to having them abolished now, than they were back in 1978 when the Bakke decision provided the first glimmer of hope.  In fact, quotas have become even more blatant and entrenched, and we are rapidly moving toward a time when they will be explicit and unassailable.  Current efforts have failed, and it is important to acknowledge this and understand why.  Only then can we alter our approach to a more effective one.  I decided to write a lengthy article, bit by bit, about the failure of quota-opponents to make any progress over the last few decades.  I will post each part of this article as soon as I have completed it.

Part 1:  Running on Empty, is here.

Decades of Failure

The Fight Against Quotas 

Part 2:  Failed Approaches:  The Failure of Persuasion

   Efforts to persuade our opponents seem to fall into two main categories; appeals to morality (fairness) and appeals to the self-interest of minorities. 

   The appeal to fairness would seem self-explanatory to almost any European-American.  May the best man win…May the most qualified applicant get the job.  Disciples of this approach continually walk away frustrated because they fail to understand the simple fact that the desired result of our opponents is to effect the outcome itself, and not the process that leads to it.  Whites have the harmful tendency to incorrectly take it as a given that other cultures share European (in particular Anglo-Saxon) values with regards to justice, opportunity, and responsibility.  In reality, many, if not most, of the world’s population has absolutely no problem with the idea of assigning individual outcomes on the basis of one’s group identification.  Many immigrants to America come from parts of world where a person can be held legally liable for the actions of their blood relatives.  Appeals to righting real or imagined historical grievances committed by the white majority, through the imposition of collective group punishment, are readily accepted by these segments of the population.  Other cultures practice forms of in-group morality, where individual fairness may be cherished within the in-group, but either neglected or discouraged in dealings with out-groups.  Still other cultures may encourage individual-based justice, yet value it lower than the prospect of personal financial gain.  Appeals to a value won’t influence people who either don’t hold that value or do not prize it over conflicting ones.  The views of Thurgood Marshall, probably the most distinguished black American to have worked in the legal profession, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of fairness and blind justice, are representative of the feelings of most non-whites; “you guys (whites) have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn.”  These appeals to morality will not even work on white quota-supporters who were born and raised in a society cherishing these values.  For them, again, the outcome, not the process, is the object of their efforts.  They don’t care about a minority getting a fair shot at a job, they care only about that minority actually getting said job.  Reasons for white support of quotas vary.  In its malignant form, support for quotas among whites can be caused by racial self-loathing, leading to a desire to see whites displaced.  In its more benign form, it can result from moral status seeking, where individuals hope to able to point to a given number of minorities elevated to higher positions as concrete and tangible proof of their concern for others, as demonstrated by the results of the policies they championed.  Either way, what they desire is the actual awarding of the empty position to a minority.  At the end of the day, arguing about the merits of a process won’t convince an individual that their desire for a given result is wrong. 

   The second main approach of efforts to persuade quota supporters seems to focus on attempting to convince minority beneficiaries that quotas are harmful to them.  Simply put, this will not work because it is not true.  The conventional wisdom, believed by many “mainstream” quota opponents, is that quotas benefit only a small percentage of minorities, and at the same time, stigmatize the vast majority of minorities, who hold positions that they are deserving of.  To begin with, large numbers of minorities will never oppose quotas because, far from being harmed by them, they are actually beneficiaries of them.  According to Richard Hoste, of the 351 blacks admitted to a top-14 law school in 2008, only about 57, or approximately 16%, had at least the required LSAT score necessary to be truly deserving.  In his 1999 analysis of the effect of affirmative action on whites, the anonymous statistician La Griffe du Lion came up with numbers, based on the distribution of IQ and 1997 incomes, that would suggest that about 4,239,000 of 15,428,000 black workers, or approximately 27.5%, were in income quintiles higher than the ones they would belong in under a meritocracy.  There are two things to keep in mind when considering this number.  First off, 13 years later, quotas and discrimination against whites are much more prevalent now than they were in 1997.  Second, his analysis just tabulates the number of blacks who do not belong in the income quintile that they are currently in.  The first four quintiles have a range of about $10,000 to $15,000, and the fifth quintile consists of all of those making $45,000 a year or more.  So this method wouldn’t take into account a black head-janitor making $18,000 a year (2nd quintile), who was really only qualified to be a regular rank-and-file janitor making $16,000 a year (also the 2nd quintile).  When you take these two facts into consideration, it is entirely arguable that at least 50% of blacks currently hold a position of which they are not deserving based on merit.  This means that any randomly selected black, that you try to convince to abandon support for quotas, is just as likely to personally benefit from them as he is to be unaffected or harmed by them.  Good luck with that!  The idea that quotas unfairly stigmatize hoards of deserving professional-class minorities is also false.  The hilarious irony of the “stigmata” argument is that it tends to be completely inverted from reality in that it is typically directed towards high-status and/or professional blacks, attempting to convince them that quotas further down the socio-economic ladder cause whites to incorrectly think that they don’t deserve the high socio-economic positions which they hold, and that they obviously do deserve by virtue of their…well…holding them.  A typical example of this would be a statement along the lines of the following:  “Colin Powell [or fill in your distinguished black professional of choice] should be against quotas…he obviously doesn’t need them…look at how articulate [a favorite adjective of those explaining the success of a given black professional] he is…look at how successful he is…there is just no way that he could have risen to that level of prominence due solely to affirmative action.”  This line of reasoning seems to be based on the unfounded belief that somewhere…somehow…there just has to be some occupational status threshold-level beyond which quotas no longer have any effect.  Old Colin had a ready-made response for our naïve imaginary friend.  With regard to the harm caused to the alleged legions of capable blacks holding high status positions that they actually deserved on merit, Powell’s advice, as quoted by Richard Hoste was to “get one of those well-paying jobs (through affirmative action) to pay for all the therapy they’ll need to remove the stigma.”  Powell’s lack of concern is typical of the black professional class.  The reason for this is that the black intellectual, statesman, or pundit whom the quota-opponent is trying to convert is actually more likely to be helped by quotas than the lower status black who is supposedly stigmatizing him.  Trying to convince a black college professor to oppose quotas because the hiring of an undeserving black auto-mechanic has tarnished his holding of a professorship, of which he is deserving, won’t work because a given black college professor is actually less likely to be deserving of his job than a black auto mechanic is of his.  Assume that members of Group B (which make up 10% of the population), on average, have lower intelligence than members of Group A (which make up 90%), and that intelligence is a valid predictor of occupational capability.  Let us also assume that members of Group B make up only 5% of those with IQ’s over 120 (hypothetically the occupational requirement to be a professor) and only 8% of those with IQ’s over 100 (the hypothetical occupational requirement to be an auto mechanic), and that members of Group B are required to make up a proportional 10% of both professions.  Average IQ of 85 or not, it doesn’t take that much brain power to realize that a higher percentage of Group B professors will be unqualified for their jobs than the percentage of Group B auto mechanics who are unqualified for theirs.  Truth be told, mentally contrasting the difference in abilities of Samuel Huntington and Henry Louis Gates probably has more of a negative effect on how the average White views the abilities of a black auto mechanic than the effect mentally contrasting the difference in abilities of auto mechanics Patrick and Kareem has on how the average White views the abilities of Cornell West.  We can look back now and clearly see that decades of efforts to persuade our opponents have failed both to convince them to abandon their support for quotas and to halt the actual practice of quotas.  Legislative efforts haven’t fared any better.

Required Reading: The Best of Sailer

February 13, 2010

A couple of months ago, when Ricci and Sonia Sotomayor were all over the news, Steve Sailer wrote a ton of articles about the case/nomination, and about AA and “disparate impact” in general.  If you are new to the topic, or if you want to learn more, his writings are a great place to start.  Sailer has a sharp mind and a sharper wit, and manages to demolish the arguments of quota-supporters.  Here are some of his articles that you should check out:

Decades of Failure: Part 1 – Running on Empty

February 13, 2010

Opponents of racial quotas are no closer to having them abolished now, than they were back in 1978 when the Bakke decision provided the first glimmer of hope. In fact, quotas have become even more blatant and entrenched, and we are rapidly moving toward a time when they will be explicit and unassailable. Current efforts have failed, and it is important to acknowledge this and understand why. Only then can we alter our approach to a more effective one. I decided to write a lengthy article, bit by bit, about the failure of quota-opponents to make any progress over the last few decades. I will post each part as I have completed it.

Decades of Failure
The Fight Against Quotas

Part 1: Running on Empty:

   On November 24, 2009, it was announced that 14 of the 19 White and 1 Hispanic firefighters who comprised the plaintiffs in the now famous Ricci decision will finally receive their well-deserved promotions from the City of New Haven, Connecticut. Five months after being ordered to correct this injustice by the Supreme Court, 3 years after the original lawsuit was filed by the firefighters, 6 year after the promotion exam was given, and 31 years after the legal battle against quotas truly began with the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision in 1978, this action represents the most significant victory in the war against anti-white discrimination. What Ricci does do is ensure that these 20 firefighters receive promotions to positions to which they were the most qualified. What Ricci does not do is in any way interrupt the prevailing quota regime. To quote Heather Mac Donald, writing in City Journal, “The Supreme Court tweaked the edges of discrimination law…but otherwise left the evasions and euphemisms of that hoary edifice largely intact.” At best, Ricci simply requires that employers concoct some additional reason, other than differing test scores or the fear of lawsuits resulting from them, to justify discrimination against whites. This new reason given by discriminating employers will still need to be challenged in court, and will likely be upheld by District and Appeals Court judges similar to the ones that upheld New Haven’s actions in the Ricci case. Perhaps higher courts will overturn some of these decisions. But this will take time, and each case of discrimination against whites will still have to be fought in court on an individual basis. An effortless end-run around a Ricci-like outcome in similar situations, that is gaining popularity among diversity-obsessed bureaucrats, is to simply eliminate standardized testing in order to avoid the appearance of entitlement by whites to these positions. The lack of post-Ricci panic among minority activists is noticeable…and completely understandable. The world is going their way. For example, a 2005 report from the Office of Personnel Management found that in Fiscal Year 2004, 56% of all new federal jobs went to non-whites…and that was during a Republican administration! One small case involving 19 individuals in one small city does nothing to change the underlying trend…that America is headed toward an era where any under-representation by minorities in any desired area of employment will either be eliminated afterwards through litigation, or pre-empted beforehand by employers ensuring that a minority group’s share of the workforce at the very least mirrors its share of the population. As any unemployed white who has seen a job advertisement followed by “EEOC applicants encouraged to apply” can tell you, they have nothing to fear. Maybe that explains the lack of popping champagne corks and “Mission Accomplished” banners on our side, in spite of the jubilations of finally having achieved Saint Martin’s “dream” by some establishment conservatives. After 32 years of post-Bakke toil, the crowning achievement of quota-opponents consists of righting a single wrong done to 19 individuals following a 6-year ordeal. This lack of any tangible macro-level accomplishment after decades of effort means that opponents of quotas have two options. Writing in The American Conservative, Marcus Epstein had a poignant tongue-in-cheek quote about the sad state of affairs of the American Conservative Movement in 2005 – “If electing Republicans and waging wars is the gauge, then the movement has been a gleaming success.” To paraphrase and adapt, if getting 19 individuals promoted after 32 years of work, countless man-hours of effort, and millions of dollars spent, is success, then it’s time for quota-opponents to either put Ward Connerly in a flight-suit and hold a photo-op on the deck of an aircraft carrier, or try a new direction.
   Our current failed efforts to fight quotas have consisted of three main approaches; trying to persuade our opponents, trying to end quotas legislatively, and trying to have the courts overturn quotas. All three have failed miserably.

I will post the remaining parts of this article as soon as they have been written.

Part 2 is available here.

An Introduction

February 13, 2010

The recent Ricci decision has brought racial quotas back into the debate. While the outcome may represent a victory (albeit a small one in practice), which has been lauded beyond its true significance by “establishment” conservatives and “mainstream” quota-opponents, it does nothing to change the overall trend of our society. That, the first premise of this blog, is as follows: We are rapidly moving towards an age when all decisions concerning individuals, will be based one way or another, on their membership in certain demographic sub-groups, with the end result being that members of preferred sub-groups will always be at least proportionally represented (at least equal to their share of the population), when it comes to achieving any desired outcome. Since probably no sub-group has within itself the natural abilities for its members to achieve every desired outcome proportionally, these results will come at the expense of more deserving individuals from less-favored sub-groups. In short, we are becoming a quota-nation…every hiring, firing, admissions, and pay decision is heading towards being based solely on an individual’s race, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Some groups will be favored over all others…some groups will be favored over some and favored less than others…some groups will be favored over no one. Many will feel injustice. White male conservative heterosexual Christians without disabilities will feel it the most. The second premise of this blog is as follows: That American institutions, as long as they continue to exist in any form remotely resembling that of today, will continue to operate this way indefinitely. It’s possible to slow the pace of the slide towards complete quota-ism. It’s possible to achieve some small individual victories here and there. It may even be possible, in the immediate near-term, to make some progress in the other direction. But the longer-term trends are baked in the cake. The minority population is too high. The remnants of America’s traditional individualistic culture are too weak. The elite of our society is too hostile to the historic population and has too much power with which to act on that hostility. The frequency of group-based, in particular race-based, outcomes in American institutions will not lessen in your lifetime. Things will not get better in your children’s lifetime either. This blog will track the decline into quota-totalitarianism. It will also examine ways that individuals themselves might be some of the lucky few that escape the hard bigotry of proportional representation. But make no mistake about it, the only way to avoid the effects of the broader trend is to abandon American institutions entirely.