Posts Tagged ‘reverse discrimination’

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.


Sailer vs. Preferential Loans to Minorities

March 25, 2010

Steve Sailer takes on preferences for minorities, this time preferential small business loans for South Asians, again here:

“In 1982, South Asian immigrant businessmen persuaded the Reagan Administration to reclassify Asian Indians from Caucasian to Asian so that they would be eligible for minority business development low-interest loans from the Small Business Administration and for breaks on federal contracting. (Hasidic Jews were given special privileges in 1982, as well.) According to a 2005 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the SBA: “In 1982, SBA designated “Asian Indian Americans” as a socially disadvantaged group.” “

Jews?…getting preferential treatment?…in this country?…Why never in a million years would I have imagined!  Indian immigrants and Jews started getting preferential treatment in 1982…must be that “conservative” Reagan Administration I’m always hearing about.  Apparently they weren’t content with this…as they managed to top themselves by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants a few years later. 

“The 2010 Census will likely reveal that of the 15 specified racial groups on the Census form, “Asian Indians” have the highest average incomes.”

How freaking “socially disadvantaged” can you be if you have the highest average income in the country?  Supporters of these loans say that they are necessary to help overcome “disadvantages” faced by certain groups.  Isn’t having the highest income of any group proof that they face absolutely no disadvantages at all.  You would think that even a slightly competent lawyer could argue for similar loans on behalf of a white client, citing this fact as evidence that these loans are nothing more than unjustified freebies for minorities.  Conservative institutions/lawyers/foundations?…Hello?…Never mind…I’m sure they have more important things on their plates…They’re probably too busy working on appeals for Jonathan Pollard or something.

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%.

Africa Got Served!!!

March 4, 2010

Apparently blacks can’t even win a “stepping” competition without affirmative action.  The Council of Conservative Citizens brings us the story:

“A white sorority from Arkansas beat a number of black sororities in a dance competition in Atlanta. The competition was sponsored by Sprite of the Coca-Cola company and the winners were to receive $100k worth of scholarships.

Immediately after the competition black columnists screamed “racism.” Black internet users have posted thousands of messages on YouTube and other websites complaining that whites had won the mostly black competition. Many complained that a white team was even allowed to compete, and demanded that future competitions be “black only.”

Well, screaming and complaining about made up slights pays off apparently. To appease the black community Coca-Cola has retroactively named the second place team as a “co 1st place winner.” The black sorority that came in second had their prize scholarships upgraded to equal the amount given to the white sorority from Arkansas.”

From an Associated Press article in The Washington Post:

“Now a white Arkansas team’s win in an Atlanta step competition has started a fiery debate over the African-inspired tradition and whether the integration of a once-ethnically exclusive activity constitutes a form of cultural theft.”

Wouldn’t a form of…culture…need to be stolen in order to constitute “cultural theft.”  Clapping and stomping your feet to a set rhythm is the underlying concept of most “Barney” DVD’s.  I guess you could compare a purple dinosaur to ancient Greek Philosophy.

“”What has happened is black youth culture, what people would call hip hop, sort of made black culture accessible and appealing to all kinds of people,” said Walter Kimbrough, president of historically black Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., and an expert on black Greek life. “It really now has become an American experience.” “

“An expert on black Greek life?!?!”  They have those?  Has the American quest for knowledge reached such a pinnacle of greatness that we now, after having mastered such basic concepts as addition, and such advanced subjects as quantam physics, have enough time on our hands to devote our studies to the social theories behind the intricate workings of black fraternities and sororities.  Shouldn’t we try to become experts on Chemical Engineering or Pharmaceutical Research instead?

“A YouTube video of their performance, inspired by the movie “The Matrix,” generated hundreds of comments….”Good Job but let the Black folks have their own thing for once!!!” wrote one commenter posting under the name “titetowers” who said the Zeta Tau Alpha [the white sorority]team did well but should not have won.”

I couldn’t agree more “titetowers.”  Why don’t you guys leave fields like, oh…Medicine, Science, and the Law to us…and you can have “stepping” all to yourselves.

“On Thursday, sponsor Coca-Cola announced “scoring discrepancies” and said the runner-up – the Alpha Kappa Alpha [black]team from Indiana University, whose members are black – would share first place and receive the same $100,000 in scholarships that the Zeta Tau Alphas won.

It was unclear what the discrepancies were and Coca-Cola would not elaborate. The tournament began in September with a series of regional qualifying rounds around the country.”

Maybe giving out 5 points for having every member of the “team” stomp their right foot at the same time had a “disparate impact” on the black teams.

“Zeta Tau Alpha national spokeswoman Christy Barber said the University of Arkansas chapter started stepping 16 years ago and participants were originally mentored by the school’s Alpha Kappa Alpha chapter.”

“Mentored?!?!”  When I was a young child…like 8 years old…I showed my friend how to skip rocks across the water.  “Mentored” isn’t quite the word I would have used.  It calls to mind Richard Hoste’s observation that “banal, everyday acts that are performed by whites become tinged with romanticism in the media when done by blacks.”

So, Coca-Cola sponsors a competition that should be a “gimmee” for blacks…corporate “reparations by another name” you might call it…black teams lose to a white team, suddenly Coca-Cola noticed a scoring “discrepency,” and now a black team is a co-first place winner, and receives the same award.  Would the white team have had their reward increased if they had come in second place?  Of course not.  But hey, Corporate America is a hard-charging bastion of competition, efficiency, and the profit motive.  If Hannity ’12 would only become a reality…then we could let the magic of the market do its thing…[insert Mitt Romney quote consisting of: a noun, a verb, and “innovation”].

Doesn’t Coca-Cola have some kind of responsibility to its shareholders?  Isn’t the money it spends supposed to create value for them?  Is the $200,000+ spent on the “competition” really the best use of their investment.  In theory, sponsoring stupid events like this is supposed to make people want to go out and buy Coke.  “They pay for themselves.”  I’m pretty sure $200,000 spent on advertising or sales promotions probably would have generated a lot more revenue than this did.  Even paying out this money in dividends would have been more ethical than this.

Remember “The First Rule of Diversity in Corporate America”:  “given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.”  Keep this in mind as you’re slaving away at your desk in the basement of some large corporation, taking pride in your work ethic.  Your employer wants to displace you just as badly as the Black Panthers do.  This is why we need to start forming our own economic institutions.  At least that way, the fruits of our labor won’t go to support our disposession.  Alex Kurtagic recommends a sort of “white nationalist certification” marking for all products made by the like-minded, similar to the concept of kosher-approval.  I’m not really sure how effective/plausible that would be…do you really think Wal-Mart will stock those products…but it’s better than nothing.  In my humble opinion, a more reasonable start would be some form of drop-shipping internet retailer.  Whites who make different products, like jewelry or childrens toys, can all sell their products on the same site, and one order can be placed for multiple items for convenience.  Then, the site administrator places individual orders with the makers of each requested product, and those “artisans” ship their respective items directly to the customer.  Hey…it’s a start.  Just remember this, as of right now, every dollar that you send up the corporate ladder comes right back down at you with a vengeance in the form of affirmative action, donations to minority organizations, or…well…”stepping” scholarships for blacks.  This disconnect between our elites and the interests of the rest of us reminds me of a recent Steve Sailer post:

It discusses a recent David Brooks article relating the fall of the old Protestant Establishment, and the rise of our new multicultural overlords (read Jews), to the lack of concern that our elites now show for the commoners.  Quote Sailer:

“The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.”

I guess that’s one way of looking at it.  Or it could just be an attempt to attribute the hostility that the Jewish elite feels toward its white-gentile subjects to such benign concerns as short-term performance goals.  Maybe Sailer’s (who has definitely done some great work for our side) strategy for combatting Jewish power is that if he just writes enough praising columns about David Brooks, he can finally nudge him and his co-ethnics into actually slightly caring about our well being.  Hey…it beats the approach of some philo-semite “conservatives” who are aware of Jewish power.  This pet-gentile/house-goy approach seems to consist of trying to convince the organized Jewish community that their interests will be better served by an America not entirely void of White influence.  “A White-led U.S. military would do a better job of crushing Israel’s enemies than one led by quota-hires”…”Look at how much cotton I pick massah…Derbyshire do good!” 

Given a choice between:

a) The Sailer approach:  Hope our Jewish elites will take pity on me and use some of the bailout money they received from my taxes to hire me at minimum wage to delete Nigerian General e-mails from the Inbox, and

b) The Derbyshire approach:  Accept my place in the American caste system as one of Zionism’s international enforcers,

I choose:

c) 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.

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.