Posts Tagged ‘quotas’

Obama Administration Supports University of Texas Quotas

April 3, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal:

“The Obama administration has asked a federal appeals court to uphold a race-conscious admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin, aiming to stymie a lawsuit that conservatives hope will spur the Supreme Court to limit affirmative action at public colleges.”…

“The University of Texas case was brought in 2008 by two white students who were rejected for admission to the state’s flagship campus. Three-fourths of freshmen gain admission on academic grounds if they rank among the top 10% of their high school’s graduating class. But others are admitted through a “holistic” evaluation in which admission officers, alerted to each applicant’s race by a label on his or her file, may take into account racial or ethnic identity, among other factors.”…

“The white students alleged that the admissions formula violated federal civil-rights law. In August, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks rejected their claim, finding that Texas’s admissions plan was legal because it was based on the Michigan system upheld by the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans; whoever loses there likely will ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue.”…

“Patricia Ohlendorf, vice president for legal affairs at the Austin campus, said many private and public universities take some account of race in admissions. Because blacks and Hispanics on average score lower on entrance exams than white and Asian-American applicants, universities have adopted affirmative-action programs to compensate.

“We think it is critical to being able to achieve the diverse institution that we think is important,” she said.

The Obama administration agrees. “[The] university’s effort to promote diversity is a paramount government objective,” says the brief filed by the Education and Justice departments. The administration disputed claims that Texas was simply engaging in raw racial preferences.”…

So, the Obama Adminstration supports quotas, and is willing to use the Federal Government to support them.  No surprise there.  Not really sure why the federal government is taking a position on college admissions either way, especially if it is not in support of the plaintiffs.  Must be those “evil Democrats” I’m always hearing about…maybe Hannity will take a break from calling for Americans to die in an assault on Gaza to mention this.  Well, before you write that check to the RNC…which Michael Steele will probably end up just spending on a bottle of Cristal…just remember, your badass, Cowboy Hat-wearin’, “terror”-fightin’, scourge of the Middle East “W” was the jackass who helped keep the University of Texas’ anti-white discrimination in place these last few years.  Gotta love that GOP!  So, “diversity is a paramount government objective” is it?  I wonder if the University of Texas will take…dare I say…”affirmative” steps to increase the diversity of the student body in its African-American Studies Department.  Shouldn’t they have to?  I mean, according to them, having a person of a different race on your right and left in class somehow magically transmits knowledge to you by itself.  Maybe they’ll start lowering admissions standards and offering scholarships to convince white kids from Kentucky to leave their trailer parks and become “Partially-Hydrogenated Food Products and the African-American Experience”-majors.  I hear they’ll be offering a PhD track for this in the Fall.  Maybe UT-Austin should change its name to UT-Steele.


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%.

Carly Fiorina: Quota-Queen

March 10, 2010

Via Politico:

Apparently Arianna Packard, whose only claim to fame is being “the granddaughter of HP co-founder David Packard,” has written a letter to several Republicans trashing the business performance of California Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina…whose only claim to fame is nearly running that company into the ground.

From the letter:

““I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded. So, allow me to disillusion you of a few of your stated reasons for supporting her,” Packard wrote.


“Most business commentators consider Fiorina’s tenure at HP to be a disaster,” Packard continued. “The stock price dropped by 50% only to rally 10% on the announcement of her firing. She fired 28,000 people before she herself was fired, departing with the 21 million dollar golden parachute that is financing her campaign.””

Ouch.  What’s amazing isn’t so much her disastrous tenure at HP, which might have been expected, but that after she was fired, she continued to have a career in the business world and that others would ask for her opinion, including the poorly-run McCain campaign, who brought her on board as an economic advisor/spokeswoman.  Her job was to make McCain look good on economic issues, admittedly an almost hopeless task.  Apparently computers and politics aren’t that different, because she failed miserably here too, stating in an interview that “I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation.”  She’s right of course…but apparently she couldn’t run one either…as evidenced by the fact that she was FIRED!  Made a CEO by political correct corporate types…runs the company into the ground.  Made a political spokeswoman…makes her candidate look bad.  Made the GOP-frontrunner by the Republican establishment…well…I guess we’ll just have to wait to see how that turns out. 

Funny…when I fail at something, there are negative consequences.  Must be that “glass ceiling” I’m always hearing about!

In related news, Vietnam veteran (just kidding!) David Frum seems to think that women should be allowed in combat units (I won’t link directly to the article out of principle.  Frum didn’t write it, but it appears at his site.).  The logic seems to be this:  female IDF soldiers do a good job of harassing unarmed Palestinian farmers, there are substandard male soldiers as well, and some woman rode in a supply convoy without killing everyone around her, so there are now no physical/emotional/psychological differences between the genders, and Sgt. Fiorina (loaded down with gear) will be able to carry her wounded 200 lbs. comrade (also loaded down with gear) to safety just as easily as a 195 lbs. 19 year old young man in his prime could.  I’m sure she’ll have no problem putting on a flak jacket with inserts, a helmet, a pack, a weapon, ammunition, and crew-served weapons gear and hiking 15 miles in the desert either.  At first thought I was upset by this stupid suggestion, but since I’m no longer in the military, the operational efficiency of the IDF’s foreign legion doesn’t matter as much to me any more.  Apparently the philo-semite approach to dealing with a hostile Jewish elite, “trying to convince the organized Jewish community that their interests will be better served by an America not entirely void of White [male] influence”…” ‘A White-led U.S. military would do a better job of crushing Israel’s enemies than one led by quota-hires’…”…is no longer even an option.  I guess our elites have decided to make up on quanitity what we lack in quality.  “So what if (now General) Fiorina failed to save (Pat Buchanan’s proverbial) McAllister?”  “Plenty of Scots-Irish kids in Tennessee to take his place.”  I guess that just leaves my approach:  “Divorce myself as much as possible from American institutions, which actively seek to displace me, so that I no longer have an interest in whether or not they collapse.”

Well, there’s always the Sailer approach (he’s actually unbelievably outstanding on just about everything else):  “Hope that if we just write enough praising columns about David Brooks, we can finally convince him and some of his more radical co-ethnics to actually care more about the life of some Scots-Irish farmboy than about some abstract concept like ‘diversity’.”

I guess anything’s possible…

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.

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.