A Government of Laws and Not of Races
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:
A Government of Laws and Not of Races
Steve Sailer
June 07, 2023
The Supreme Court will soon rule on college admissions affirmative action. (Heck, they might have already announced their decision by the time you read this.)
What should the Supreme Court do next?
Here are some key points the Court should make in upcoming years to counter the growing antiwhite hate and discrimination of our era.
Read the whole thing there.
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Fine sounding words – and total piffle. None of the above has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening. Diversity has destroyed the West. It cannot be rebuilt. The future will be very different.
The law and institutions are downstream from culture which is downstream from biology. If you change the people, everything else will eventually change.
Sorry, Steve, there's no going back to a culture created by a 90% white country when when whites are becoming a minority - and a very weak minority at that.
There is no arguing with a set of assumptions like that. If things aren't even, the Alpha race that has more stuff and experiences less punishments is obviously screwing over the Beta race. The only solution is "Equity" by which the Beta race is given as much wealth as the Alpha race, and only punished as often and with the same severity as the Alpha race.All other outcomes are racist and perpetuate white privelege and white supremacy. All this stuff is is Marxism by race. It has to be completely eschewed for the U.S. to remain competitive long term.
That’s an agenda for a decade of litigation, not an outline for one decision, though the Court can decide these two cases in language that suggests your arguments. Keep in mind that there are two standards here, the Equal Protection clause for state universities and governments and the Civil Rights Act for private colleges and organizations.
Powell wasn’t naive. I think there are three elements here that need to unravelled.
1. Powell (and most of American society) had no idea of the impact of the 1965 immigration act and also illegal immigration in changing demographics. He was looking at at a black/white world, much like the one he had lived in Virginia. A black/white world is a terrible way to analyze America today.
2. Powell had been head of the Richmond School board in the 1960s. He was very aware of the the need to preserve segregation while at the same time following the law. He tried every trick he could think of to do that – while at the same time arguing against the “Massive Resistance” of shutting down public schools. He was innately familiar with the artificial nature of goals vs targets.
3. Powell had a 19th century view of the world and thought the Constitution and the Supreme Court had done the right thing with Brown. Use the law to ensure equality but you can’t use the law to reshape society. His view of diversity in affirmative action was ultimately one about elites and about the need for the state to recognize the need for elite initiations to decide what they want. If Harvard wants legacy, they get legacy. If they wants blacks, they get blacks. The state should not tell a private institution what it needs to do to the extent possible.
I think that last view was a bit naive; but the courts quickly slapped down most affirmative action programs after Bakke and it’s largely an elite college problem. Honestly, it’s really just a Harvard issue. When you drop down to the rest of the Ivy League, black admissions are basically in line with their representation in the middle class (around 5-7%) . Much like New York private schools that admit around a 10% black class. We’ve seen a resurgence of the disparate impact in the last 10 year which the courts needs to slap down, but affirmative action outside of higher eduction is not much of an issue in America today.
In that spirit: when I was at Harvard decades ago, I did not meet a single black student who was sub-standard or "affirmative action goofball" or anything like that. They were all highly intelligent accomplished people who had total business being there (and believe me, I know how to condescend to idiots) who never rated a second of condescension. Some of them were my colleagues in fact. But of course, who knows what it's like now.
If you wanted to look for patterns, they were mostly arts-oriented types, not physics or engineering dudes. But then again that was me too. And some of them unfortunately were sort of high-end crazy: a few went over the cliff and kinda-sorta committed suicide. But that's a personality type (as I know from bitter experience) not a categorical racial sort of thing; but one can make correlations as one sees fit.Replies: @anonymous
If we were going to excuse some temporary breach of the Constitutional order, it was one thing to do so in 1978 when the U.S. was essentially 11-12% black of overwhelmingly domestic origins, and 84% white or so with an assorted de minimis smattering of others. The burdened population was large in proportion, and the benefited population consisted nearly entirely of descendants of American slaves. Blacks at that time were also eager to prove that they deserved those opportunities, even if they didn’t deserve them according to objective criteria, and hadn’t yet hardened into a sense of eternal entitlement to at least a proportionate share of all high status occupations. Bakke was wrong, harmful, and doomed to fail but the scope of its harm was limited due to the proportions of the population of the U.S. at the time it was decided.
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.
Once you give up the idea of making policy based on white group interests, you have signed on to doing whatever anti-white liberals want. You cannot accept discriminating against whites to help blacks a little bit and then make it stop because you personally think it's enough now. An 85% majority whose leaders allows a single one of its members to be hurt even the tiniest amount in an effort to give favoritism to a foreign race has already lost all pride and self-respect. Once you cross that line even a micrometer, you are all the way across the line. Failure to understand this is why we are where we are now.Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
Example, Rep. Massie (who I greatly respect in general) opposes E-Verify because he's worried it would be a way to deny employment to people legally eligible for a job. That is true, but the fact is that the feds and corporations will deny employment to anyone they don't like with or without E-Verify, and whether it is constitutional or not. They'll just do it and nobody will stop them.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-affirmative-action-regime/
Since the decade (1960s) when “Civil Rights” laws were passed, people knew that they were written to help Black! Americans by giving them their own set of laws*, a better deal than the White man got. That meant that “Civil Rights” were not Constitutional to begin with, as basic Constitutional rights don’t have stipulations about race and sex..
So I get it, this saying that they actually apply to everybody is a slick, back-handed way to get rid of these bogus “Civil Rights”. That won’t work. I’m pretty sure those who have been benefiting from this government mandated anti-White-man discrimination will be wise to this.
They don’t care about rule of law over race or over sex. After almost 60 years of this, they are used to governments and other institutions being on their side to screw over the White man.
The principles and logic in your (1) through (9) mean nothing to people who want their free stuff and power that “Civil Rights” gives them. No thanks.
(10) Empirical data should mean nothing when you’re talking principles anyway, so before or after Bakke, who cares? What’s right is right. What’s wrong is wrong.
(11) We all know this. They will come up with new terms and new tricks, like “Holistic Admissions”.
(12) I like that, phasing in of Rights. “The right to a speedy trial will be phrased back in over a 10 year period, J6 Political Prisoners.” I don’t see that as something principled people do.
(13) Why doesn’t the SCROTUS just rule separately on college admission by college and department, while we’re at it? We’ll have 20 page rulings, to be updated yearly by the Secretary of Education.
(14) – (15) are playing their game. You won’t win because new theories will come out.
(16) Again, we all know that. We’ve had to put up with that for 60 years. THEY, OTOH, don’t care that you have had to.
.
* Per Chris Caldwell, who cucked out against the truth nonetheless in his chapters on race and sex, it created a 2nd, conflicting, constitution.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
As ever, good ol’ George Orwell – a man who died over 70 years ago, and, apparently, had never been to the USA, or, of course, had any possible notion of the modern madness of America is truly the prophet of this present age:
‘All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others’.
‘Four legs good. Two legs bad’.
‘In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’.
I do find it fascinating that conservatives don’t seem to have a problem with the group who benefits the most from affirmative action by a wide margin.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?
I doubt your basic premise is true, but even if you're right, it's only what men have done throughout all of history: help out close family members.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/when-did-american-intelligence-peak/#comment-5926697
Until antibiotics and birth control, females either died more often young due to childbearing or were burdened with raising their children. Since the 60s and prior, no longer.
Skill and competence levels are widely distributed in females and most of the proclaimed discrimination against them is based on facts, not prejudice. Or their choices, as the weaker and more emotion prone sex, to avoid many occupations which require more physical strength or emotional toughness.
Men are from Mars, women from Venus.
Women promoted above their personal level of emotional stability and resilience are prone to backstabbing and minor complaints over "hurt feelings" and inability to handle interpersonal stress. Sure male sexual aggressiveness is annoying but biology is destiny. Hard wired, and capable of being controlled in public and social settings by old fashioned manners and etiquette. Female singers and performers cash in on this while often hypocritically griping about sexism.
For every Harry Styles there are dozens of Brittney Spears.
Also, in general women are less analytical and more emotion oriented. Probably based upon cultural genetics.
Few women want dangerous occupations or physicial work or those which require analytics and emotional hardiness. Some do but not many. I don't see any female trash collectors.
It is no surprise that Social Media censors are mainly females.
There are sound natural reasons why few males are suited for professional child care or teaching younger children. Raising children in families is more important than careerism.
While I generally oppose government subsidies, a European style "child allowance" for stay-at-home mothers up to a certain age is an idea worth exploring.
Most of the job related discrimination over pay can be justified by productivity differences. And envy is a common female character flaw, easily now blamed on discrimination.Replies: @Bill Jones, @Alden
In reality, a white non-Hispanic female needs a better resume to get admitted to the most selective university as compared to a white non-Hispanic male. If an selective university is 50/50 male/female, there they are using affirmative action for males.
And get more stories about the “Illegitimate Supreme Court”.
John Roberts said “The way to end discrimination is to end discrimination.”
So do it.
Steve mocks our rulers for believing in “magic dirt,” but Steve – and other colorblind CivNats – believe in “magic words.”
The law and institutions are downstream from culture which is downstream from biology. If you change the people, everything else will eventually change.
Sorry, Steve, there’s no going back to a culture created by a 90% white country when when whites are becoming a minority – and a very weak minority at that.
Steve, thanks for laying out these points in such a logical way. My fear is that even if the Supreme Court did rule on each of these as you suggest, Harvard, Google, Goldman Sachs, etc. will just ignore them, or openly defy them, thereby daring straight white men to take their case to court. Given that their entire careers will be on the line and the resources (both in lawyers AND marketing power, not to mention all the liberal judges in lower courts) they’ll be up against, it’ll prove too much. Who’s going to take them on in court for years and years, spending millions of dollars while Woke CEOs turn themselves into heroic matrys determined to die for social justice?
The only real solution is a compromise. The best way to do this is to re-establish freedom of association for the private sector – if they want DEI/CRT, let them have it. But that means no public funding, no tax breaks, no non-profit status. All public institutions, and any organization receiving taxpayer money, must be strictly meritocratic and race cannot be considered. At least then there will be a sorting out and a multitude of options. It also gives some private organizations the strategic window to separate themselves from the pack. Let your competitors stay woke and make a dash for meritocracy and achievement! There will be some CEOs and College Presidents who will make that choice, then we’ll see who rises and falls in market share and the rankings.
We're in a religious war. The other side can't accept a competing morality. There is only one God - their God.
It's why they're freaking out about China, Russia and other countries not accepting their morality. It makes people question our rulers' contention that they are on the side of angels and that the arc of history will lead to their utopia.
Consider a wealthy couple that earn about 225K a year. Federal and state taxes property taxes mortgage payments car utility expenses. All those unavoidable expenses just don’t leave 50K a year to send someone to college.
Any organization or entity that has any license or permit from any government agency is required by law to practice affirmative action. Private club serves food needs a local restaurant permit. Even the building permits and sewer hook ups. A government permit of any kind requires affirmative action. Plus there’s the 50 or more employees requires affirmative action. It’s impossible to run a college without local permits and licenses. And government insured student loans and or grants to pay the tuition.
Plus the Republicans and conservatives love affirmative action as much as do the democrats. Because non White affirmative action immigrants lower wages.
Russia-China cope. Another American century incoming
I don't believe humanity could survive another 100 years of GAE.
"Russia-China cope. Another American century incoming" (That's the entire message).
Somebody please translate this into English. What does the hyphen mean? What copes with what? In what way will 2024-2124 be an American century?
Whatever the heck goes on in Russia (doomed) or China (hard to say) is not the issue.
When I was born in the '50s, American had about 150 million whites (90% of its population) was about 5% of the world population and accounted for something like 1/3 of the world's GDP. That was "American century".
Even the cohorts being born now are only 50% white--and ok, 5% Asian--are less than 2m people and there are more than that number coming across the border. I.e. we've already slumped 1/3 or even 1/2 of the way toward Brazil in new cohorts already baked in. The white population is falling ... and every year millions--mostly Latino but also lots of blacks--invade across the border, plus the million plus cranking through the legal process.
Brazil is a functional place and millions lead wonderful lives there, but it is not kicking up "Brazillian centuries".
The US will be a significant player in the 21st century--at least the 1st half--unless China rapidly gets it's fertility/eugenic act together. But this simply isn't 1945. And never can be again without a lot of serious and unpleasant "work".Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
Great article! In any sane world, all this would have been accomplished years ago. Sadly, we don’t live in a sane world, we live in Clown World.
Sensible, of course. If our elites were sensible, we would not be where we are.
==
Ideally, public policy would be one of strict impartiality in employment and / or service provision by public agencies, government corporations, privately-owned natural monopolies, acute-care hospitals, and a selection of enterprises providing services for travelers. Otherwise, freedom of contract and association would prevail (though activity in workplaces analogous to common crimes might be defined as tortious). You might require corporations to provide an audited statement on the demographics of their work force, stock and flow, but that would be it. ‘Desegregation of schools’ would be achieved through funding mechanisms which reduced the variability of per-pupil expenditure between districts and schools and with the use of voucher systems and open enrollment rather than busing. “Strict impartiality” would be achieved by making use of blindly graded examinations to regulate recruitment and promotion, chips falling where they may and conducting audits of supervisors and managers whose discretionary selections from the list-of-three produced by such examinations had abnormal patterns or whose demotions and dismissals had a certain pattern (with the proviso that audits don’t always lead to sanctions). Audits of the disciplinary decisions of public school administrators might also be conducted.
==
I’ll wager if you review the private correspondence of characters like Joseph Rauh and Thurgood Marshall, you’ll discover that the entire ‘civil rights’ enterprise was a bait-and-switch scheme from the beginning. You sell the notion that we ought to dismantle institutional practices which are manifestly unfair and institutional / social practices which are contrived and generate disagreeable confrontations and bad feeling. Your real object is a social engineering scheme to ‘uplift’ the black population rather than just quit getting in their faces. See Ed Koch on his Georgetown cocktail party confrontation with Rauh in 1971 (“he was positively Churchillian”). People aren’t playdough, so social engineering schemes are likely to fail, especially when you begin with the assumption that you must give people things and never discipline them. At that point, the social engineering schemes morphed into efforts to abuse wage earners and small businessmen with white skin.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2022/01/01/thought-for-the-day-550/Replies: @Art Deco, @Ennui
So I get it, this saying that they actually apply to everybody is a slick, back-handed way to get rid of these bogus "Civil Rights". That won't work. I'm pretty sure those who have been benefiting from this government mandated anti-White-man discrimination will be wise to this.
They don't care about rule of law over race or over sex. After almost 60 years of this, they are used to governments and other institutions being on their side to screw over the White man.
The principles and logic in your (1) through (9) mean nothing to people who want their free stuff and power that "Civil Rights" gives them. No thanks.
(10) Empirical data should mean nothing when you're talking principles anyway, so before or after Bakke, who cares? What's right is right. What's wrong is wrong.
(11) We all know this. They will come up with new terms and new tricks, like "Holistic Admissions".
(12) I like that, phasing in of Rights. "The right to a speedy trial will be phrased back in over a 10 year period, J6 Political Prisoners." I don't see that as something principled people do.
(13) Why doesn't the SCROTUS just rule separately on college admission by college and department, while we're at it? We'll have 20 page rulings, to be updated yearly by the Secretary of Education.
(14) - (15) are playing their game. You won't win because new theories will come out.
(16) Again, we all know that. We've had to put up with that for 60 years. THEY, OTOH, don't care that you have had to.
.
* Per Chris Caldwell, who cucked out against the truth nonetheless in his chapters on race and sex, it created a 2nd, conflicting, constitution.Replies: @res
That quote from Steve is great. What I want to know is whether Justice Jackson’s views as expanded on in the links Steve gave were discussed in her confirmation hearing. If not, seem like great material for questions in future confirmation hearings.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalism
Here is her reasoning.
Hmm… Sounds like we need to have a discussion about “equality before the law” (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and “equality of opportunity” versus “equality of outcome.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase “brought equal with everyone else in society.” (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes “citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens” and “unequal treatment.” More of the same…
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer’s take on that video (6 minutes).
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/conservative-justices-seem-poised-to-uphold-alabamas-redistricting-plan-in-voting-rights-act-challenge/Current status here. Does not look like much has happened since October.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/merrill-v-milligan-2/Steve is writing about Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFAI) v. President and Fellows of Harvard and SFAI v. University of North Carolina. Here is a recent summary article.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2023/06/05/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-reverse-affirmative-action-heres-what-you-need-to-know/Here is the status I see.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/P.S. For the Trump haters out there. Now is a good moment to ponder the value of him defeating Hillary and appointing two Supreme Court justices. Especially after having seen Biden's appointee.
But if they wanted to only protect "blacks" in the 14th Am., why didn't they just use those terms again? Using different words implies a different intent. By deliberately using race-neutral language, they were presumably signalling that the 14th Am. should apply equally to all races. No?
Jackson appears to be really dumb, and really biased. Which makes her a perfect champion for the affirmative action system that put her on the Court.
Also, in reply to Hypnotoad, while I'm at it, re:Yep, perfect. That's what Jim Clyburn wanted, and that's what his Black! constituents in S. Carolina and all over the country wanted. The thoughts of James Madison, TJ, and the kinds of guys who wrote the Federalist Papers mean nothing compared to "me and my tribe".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-alabama-congressional-map-voting-rights-dispute-rcna64476
So conservatives achieved their greatest triumph. And don’t care if affirmative action discrimination against Whites gets worse. And the entire federal and state criminal codes are overturned. And all county and state prosecutor offices are eliminated. And all police and sheriff departments eliminated.
Abortion is now illegal in the blackest states. Be happy, conservatives you won . More black thugs are in the way. Such a conservative triumph.
I wonder what the next great conservative crusade will be? Laws to make tattoos and unnatural hair colors illegal?Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
==
Ideally, public policy would be one of strict impartiality in employment and / or service provision by public agencies, government corporations, privately-owned natural monopolies, acute-care hospitals, and a selection of enterprises providing services for travelers. Otherwise, freedom of contract and association would prevail (though activity in workplaces analogous to common crimes might be defined as tortious). You might require corporations to provide an audited statement on the demographics of their work force, stock and flow, but that would be it. 'Desegregation of schools' would be achieved through funding mechanisms which reduced the variability of per-pupil expenditure between districts and schools and with the use of voucher systems and open enrollment rather than busing. "Strict impartiality" would be achieved by making use of blindly graded examinations to regulate recruitment and promotion, chips falling where they may and conducting audits of supervisors and managers whose discretionary selections from the list-of-three produced by such examinations had abnormal patterns or whose demotions and dismissals had a certain pattern (with the proviso that audits don't always lead to sanctions). Audits of the disciplinary decisions of public school administrators might also be conducted.
==
I'll wager if you review the private correspondence of characters like Joseph Rauh and Thurgood Marshall, you'll discover that the entire 'civil rights' enterprise was a bait-and-switch scheme from the beginning. You sell the notion that we ought to dismantle institutional practices which are manifestly unfair and institutional / social practices which are contrived and generate disagreeable confrontations and bad feeling. Your real object is a social engineering scheme to 'uplift' the black population rather than just quit getting in their faces. See Ed Koch on his Georgetown cocktail party confrontation with Rauh in 1971 ("he was positively Churchillian"). People aren't playdough, so social engineering schemes are likely to fail, especially when you begin with the assumption that you must give people things and never discipline them. At that point, the social engineering schemes morphed into efforts to abuse wage earners and small businessmen with white skin.Replies: @res, @Achmed E. Newman
Are there any more details about this conversation available? The only thing I see on the net is this comment from you on a blog post. It gives a bit more detail so quoting here.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2022/01/01/thought-for-the-day-550/
Interesting little tidbit that makes one lip curl in disgust, that defender of liberty and hero to normiecons, Ronald Reagan, put Rauh's son on a judicial nomination committee, unsurprising and pathetic.
Now do Jan six vs our peaceful protests.
We don’t live in a country of laws and we haven’t for decades.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
To be clear, those discussions are about a different case: Merrill v. Milligan. Here is an October 2022 piece about that case.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/conservative-justices-seem-poised-to-uphold-alabamas-redistricting-plan-in-voting-rights-act-challenge/
Current status here. Does not look like much has happened since October.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/merrill-v-milligan-2/
Steve is writing about Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFAI) v. President and Fellows of Harvard and SFAI v. University of North Carolina. Here is a recent summary article.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2023/06/05/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-reverse-affirmative-action-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
Here is the status I see.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/
P.S. For the Trump haters out there. Now is a good moment to ponder the value of him defeating Hillary and appointing two Supreme Court justices. Especially after having seen Biden’s appointee.
at 8:35. Martin Balsam’s Oscar-winning speech to Jason Robards in “A Thousand Clowns.” You’re my brother and I like you, but you don’t have a gift for surrender, and I do. I know which way the wind is blowing.
Laws are useless in a mutliracial country, as we are seeing.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
Justice Jackson is a legal idiot. All she shows is that the same Congress knew how to be color-conscious when they wanted to — e.g., by using the words “white” and “black” in drafting the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
But if they wanted to only protect “blacks” in the 14th Am., why didn’t they just use those terms again? Using different words implies a different intent. By deliberately using race-neutral language, they were presumably signalling that the 14th Am. should apply equally to all races. No?
Jackson appears to be really dumb, and really biased. Which makes her a perfect champion for the affirmative action system that put her on the Court.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2022/01/01/thought-for-the-day-550/Replies: @Art Deco, @Ennui
Koch published two volumes of memoirs ca 1985. It’s in one of them.
Would a good outcome in courts actually help the problem? Will it stop discrimination against Whites in addition to Asians, who are the subjects of the lawsuit?
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know what an end to affirmation action would look like, but I get the sinking feeling that this would not only put more hostile Asians in elite institutions but cause the institutions to simply turn the screws harder on Whites to get the diversity outcomes they will still want (a SCOTUS decision won’t undo an entire religion). That the lawsuit goes through great pains to focus on Asians tells me that even the anti-AA people want a backdoor to continue discriminating against Whites. It all sounds lose-lose to me as long as civil rights exist and enemies are in charge of the institutions.
Steve has previously made the case that “flyover Whites” are the most discriminated against in admissions, and I don’t see that changing even with the most optimistic ruling.
We need a white nationalist government. The anti-white policies will only stop when white nationalists are in charge of America again.
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
And to Dr. Patrick Chavis’ patients.
Steve, do you want a blue check mark on twitter?
What is the deal with McDonald v SantaFe?
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976)
Held:
1. Title VII, whose terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race, prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites. Pp. 427 U. S. 278-285.
Why doesn’t this SCOTUS case matter?
What will the future look like, in your opinion?
For the thousandth time, Sailer proposes a different way to resuscitate a rotting corpse. Please donate what you can, folks!
And here’s some legal news that hits Steve closer to home.
California takes a giant step toward solving the shoplifting problem, as you can tell from this headline but not from the words in the link.
https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565
Poof; Just like that it went away.
No thief, no theft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GPGcP7-FfQ
In an increasingly childish age in which the dominant worldview tends to be similar to those of Marvel movies in which there are Good Guys who clearly deserve to beat up the Bad Guys, the Court can speak out for the grown-up idea that in American law no race is born good or bad.
Problem. Whites are main instigators of this, dividing whites between the Good Whites who are into fashionable ideas and the Bad Whites, the unrepentant deplorables. Jews shaped this narrative, and many whites bought it, even conservatives who draw the line between us ‘good conservatives’ and those ‘evil’ people like race realists and the like. Didn’t National Review purge Derbyshire?
but to articulate that civil rights are inclusive. No race is excluded.
‘Inclusive’ has multiple meanings. Conservative might like it to mean all are included in an open competition, but given the HBD factors, even those who are included are effectively excluded. How many Mexicans in the L.A. Lakers team? They are included in the competition but can’t compete with blacks, even though LA is heavily brown, far more than black.
So, ‘inclusion’ has come to mean the need for quotas to include those who can’t win in the competition. Now, if this was admitted openly, it wouldn’t be so bad. Blacks are lower in IQ and black culture isn’t conducive to learning. So, the only way to have more blacks in higher positions is via quotas. Admitting that would at least be honest. But the failures of blacks is attributed to ‘racism’, which in this day and age, should be bogus to all. It’s so bogus that they came up with ‘systemic racism’, i.e. even if society rid itself of ‘racist’ policies, the problem is so deeply ingrained due to history that black are still suffering from various form of discrimination that whites aren’t even consciously aware of. It’s dumb but presented in pseudo-intellectual terms that hoodwink a lot of people.
Therefore, mandatory training classes preaching the antiwhite doctrines of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and/or Critical Race Theory represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment for white employees.
Correlation isn’t causation but this DEI gained in steam just when Jewish Power kept going through the roof. And it went totally psycho with the rise of MAGA. Could it be DEI is a browbeating of whites to rob them of pride and agency, thereby more compliant to the identity and agenda of another group, esp the Jews on top.
Take NYT. It features a lot of blackity yakking at whites, but who are the real bigshots at NYT? Probably not the type who go around saying, “me dumb polack”.
Also, if whites aren’t included for protection, how come Jews get more protection than even blacks and others even though they count as white and are the richest people in the US?
Statements of support for DIE/CRT by holders of powerful positions in institutions are to be taken as prima facie evidence of intention to discriminate illegally against whites and/or Asians.
Even though the suit was brought forth by Asians, most Asians are Democratic and in fact support AA for blacks at the expense of Asians. They got the submissive gene, always eager for approval b the prevailing norms. This is even truer among the Asian elites who only imitate and do as told.
The suit was brought forth by those rejected by the colleges of their choice. Had they been admitted, they would have joined with wokeness and made noises about ‘diversity’.
Also, these Asians don’t care about whites and haven’t the guts, like Ron Unz, the mention the Jewish factor behind this.
At US corporations, Asians are among the most vocal supporters and commissars of wokeness, along with the Good Whites. This talk of Asian-White unity in being unjustly treated is a total fantasy. Asians go with the strong horse and they join with blacks and Diversity to dump on whites. There are outliers but few and far between in elite circles.
In law, the word “equity” does not mean equality of outcome. “Equity” as recently redefined is no part of the Constitution.
Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Constitution in true practice wouldn’t allow the state suppression of BDS. The only time the Constitution matters is when the rich and powerful invoke it get what they want. When Jews needed free speech, they got it. Now, they don’t want free speech, and it’s been suppressed all over, even via state-industry collusion.
Historically, supreme court just pulled things out of its ass, like same-sex marriage. It’s a garbage institution.
Also, CA has shown that even if AA is overturned, there are so many ‘holistics’ means to have AA by other means, and people just don’t have the time and money to sue the institutions over this.
Affirmative action discrimination against whites and Asians cannot be justified on the grounds that they are the “majority.”
South Africa and Malaysia where something like AA is for the majority. In the US too when a proto-AA was used for white Christians in favor of minority Jews who were entering the Ivies in alarming numbers through much of the 20th century. I wouldn’t be surprised if AA was usually used to favor the majority, like Russians over Jews in the Soviet Union via its own form of AA.
The United States legal system is not in the business of enforcing a “racial reckoning.” We treat individuals as individuals.
LOL. Tell that to the Palestinian Americans who must sign loyalty pledges to Israel(a nation that oppresses their ethnic kin) to work in certain areas in many states.
I don’t recall reading a Taki article about the unfair treatment of Palestinian-American in violation of the Constitution.
Justice Lewis Powell’s decision in the 1978 Bakke case in which he asserted that affirmative action in college admissions is needed to promote diversity of opinion and expression on campus seemed reasonable at the time, but it has since obviously proved to be completely wrong empirically. Instead, quotas lead to students with chips on their shoulder about their intellectual deficiencies boosting cancel culture on campus to assuage their self-esteem.
This is only half-true. The reason for the rise of wokeness in institutions owes less to AA than the radical or extreme personalities of certain groups. After all, Jews were not the beneficiaries of AA, and if anything, quotas were historically used against them. Yet, they led the way in radicalizing the campus. Homos were also admitted to college on the basis of merit, and whatever one thinks of stuff like gender studies, most homos have historically not been AA cases(unless black). Yet, they too played a big role in pushing the politics of resentment. Those are two high-achieving groups.
The only AA case that pushed radicalization are blacks but many of their theories are vulgarized forms of Jewish critical theories. And the woke whites. These are not AA cases and many art smart, but they are crazy.
The rise of censoriousness and purity spirals mainly came from high achieving groups who didn’t rely on AA. Charles Murray was nearly lynched and scalped by children of rich white families.
The problem of Academic Prohibition owes to strong personalities beating weaker personalities. Over time, both liberals(real ones) and conservatives lost out because they’re more tolerant or middle-of-the-road, and more committed to fairness principles. In contrast, the radical Jews, woke whites, fanatical types of all kind won’t take no for an answer, aka by any means necessary.
There is also the factor of money. A lot of donations come from Jews, and Jews are not above using their influence to shape academic discourse, getting certain voices fired or banned, like Salaita the Palestinian from the Univ of Illinois. And Norman Finkelstein robbed of tenure at DePaul.
Jews howl about PC only when they come under pressure but aren’t averse to censorship to shut down speech they don’t like. Like Bari Weiss who tried to suppress Arab-American professors but then later whined about how her speech was being ignored. Of course, she never defended the rights of true dissidents like Kevin MacDonald.
What to do about AA? Limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of Slave Ancestry and no one else. Also, time to acknowledge blacks need AA not due to ‘systemic racism’ but lower IQ which is indisputable. And their culture sucks.
==
National Review had every reason to remove Derbyshire from the masthead in 2006, when he placed a piece in the New English Review that amounted to a lunatic attack on a book written by one of the magazine's staff editors. For reasons obscure, nothing was done. Six years later, Derbyshire published an article in Taki's satirizing 'the talk' black parents supposedly give to their children. The article said the quiet part out loud. It made several points: 'the talk' is humbug as blacks are very seldom in danger of violent assaults from whites; navigating urban life requires you understand the sort of situations to avoid, and among them are venues and events where high concentrations of blacks gather (particularly suddenly high concentrations); don't live in municipalities run by black politicians; and social status competition among bourgeois whites involves cultivating black friends. The first point is true, the last point was stated in a mildly supercilious way, and the second and third points might have benefited from some qualifications. Lowry let it slide when Derbyshire made a vitriolic attack on a large segment of the magazine's actual readers, then unloads Derbyshire when he says something mildly offensive to people who despise NR's readers stem-to-stern.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Why should Whites fund and pay attorneys to sue Harvard or any university or employer for racial discrimination against Asians?
Whites deserve the genocide planned for us. We’re more submissive than Asians and Hispanic peons.
And this Harvard obsession of middle class White men. And still blathering about Ivy League SAT scores. Every Ivy League university no longer uses SAT scored. Read their admissions websites. Most colleges clearly SAT There is no need to submit SAT scores. If submitted the SAT score will not be considered as a criteria for admission.
The concern about discrimination against Asians but total unconcern about discrimination against Whites is one of the reasons I don’t believe any Men of UNZ have children. If you guys did, you wouldn’t be pontificating about Asian college admissions. You’d be worried about your own sons and grandsons.
We would have a government of laws and not of races, if we had a Supreme Court composed of unbiased justices. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court is composed of a bunch of political hacks. Indeed, just contemplate the fact that, if not for Republican sleight of hand, Merrick Garland would probably be a Supreme Court Justice.
Very sensible advice, and I hope it’s followed. People who say it’s hopeless are not taking into account that the law is what got us here. If the law changes (and is enforced) then many of the current problems the law brought about can be eradicated.
I do wonder, though, how one can justify quotas in police departments without justifying them in schools and other politicized institutions.
Bill, the law got us here, yes. It got us here when America was filled with 85% White people. That means there were still a majority who understood what rule of law is about, leaving their personal prejudices out of it on principle.
That's not the country we have now. If everything iSteve wrote appears in the SCROTUS ruling, it's not gonna change Jack Squat. Not without a big fight to take down the whole system, it won't. It's all tribal now for the kind of people that make up a majority of the American population.
The answer is separation, and our side DOES need to remember how the rule of law got us here.
Thanks, Steve. That column exemplifies why I try to read everything you write and regularly provide financial support. It’s a clear and concise statement of how these issues should be dealt with. The West and European culture in general may be so far down the drain as to be beyond hope of redemption. If there is any hope it will be based on reasoning from principles similar to those you articulated there.
BTW, thanks for the appropriate spelling of DIE. Anyone who realizes the evil of (alternative spelling warning) DEI, should be using DIE.
I do wonder, though, how one can justify quotas in police departments without justifying them in schools and other politicized institutions.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar
[√] – Strongly Disagree
Bill, the law got us here, yes. It got us here when America was filled with 85% White people. That means there were still a majority who understood what rule of law is about, leaving their personal prejudices out of it on principle.
That’s not the country we have now. If everything iSteve wrote appears in the SCROTUS ruling, it’s not gonna change Jack Squat. Not without a big fight to take down the whole system, it won’t. It’s all tribal now for the kind of people that make up a majority of the American population.
The answer is separation, and our side DOES need to remember how the rule of law got us here.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
Thanks, Res. Note what I wrote to Bill P though. (I agree with him almost all the time, but I’m just not the optimist he is on this subject.)
Also, in reply to Hypnotoad, while I’m at it, re:
Yep, perfect. That’s what Jim Clyburn wanted, and that’s what his Black! constituents in S. Carolina and all over the country wanted. The thoughts of James Madison, TJ, and the kinds of guys who wrote the Federalist Papers mean nothing compared to “me and my tribe”.
“Let’s assume a functioning republic…”
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
Yes, they will.
But if the law is against them, and you elect conservative legislatures and judges, you can hem them in with lawsuits and put them on the defensive. Even now companies like Target and Anheuser-Busch are discovering that public opinion can swing against wokery as well as for it. A few million dollar lawsuits by unjustly dismissed white men and upheld by a GOP SCOTUS will make companies think twice about DEI.
You fight them in the media (make your own and don’t give money to people who hate you, as Brian Niemeier said), you fight them at the elections, you fight them in the courthouse, you fight them at the jury room. It took Edward Blum several decades to get his cases to a sympathetic SCOTUS.
You need a multipronged strategy involving litigation, cultural production, and political organizing.
“You can’t discriminate in favor of one race without discriminating against at least one other race. That’s just the way math works.” (from the article).
Ya think? Should have been (1). The rest, though spot-on, are mere footnotes.
What do they do when Sandra Day O’Connor rises from her bed in the nursing home and declares they are needed for another 25 years? More importantly, what happens when colleges ignore the ruling and lower courts refuse to enforce it?
A majority of the political elite are divided between total inability to understand this and agreeing with it and calling it well deserved. I believe some of them think the discrimination should last at least as long as they claim they were discriminated against.
Steve wrote that abolishing civil rights laws would be impossible, given the current unpleasantness. He is probably right, though in the case of the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least, Christopher Caldwell implied that very solution in his “The Age of Entitlement” as the only way to restoring the Constitution to its original state. The cat’s out of the bag; the horse is out of the barn; Pandora’s Box has been opened–use whatever metaphor you want. Once the 1964 CRA was enacted (followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965), the original US Constitution went out the window. And we’ve been paying the price ever since.
OT – Steve, any comment on the PGA/LIV merger? If I’m Tiger or Rory, I’m feeling awfully naif. Like little baby.
While you’re at it, any thoughts on the full-scale, irreversible professionalization of college athletics? Do colleges still maintain academic requirements for the athlete-students? Why?
Our institutions have been warped beyond recognition.
In the late 19th century intramural collegiate athletics became intercollegiate ones. School teams versus school teams in most sports.
Shortly thereafter due to serious injuries and deaths. Teddy Roosevelt set up the legal monopoly cartel run by the NCAA. Athletes could get free tuition and room and board but not paid.
In another 100 years due to expensive commercialization of college sports, especially football and basketball, huge money was earned by top competitive (and very large) universities but even personal endorsement money was stolen by the colleges. Now that has finally changed.
No other nation has semi pro sports teams pretending to be "student athletes" at all.
So this chicken has come home to roost. Racketeering Big U sports is now having to give up some of their cartel money. Why are their mainly Woke and useless U presidents and coaches being paid upwards of millions? For excellence in academics? Or cashing in on sports revenues?
Warped beyond recognition? Warped at birth. Let pro sports support their own starter leagues, not rely on laughable "academic" facades. Alumni wilt have to find some other vicarious endeavor to relive their lost golden youth. Just like every other nation's graduates on the planet.
Life's tough as a slave.Replies: @epebble
As a coda to my previous comment, I neglected to add the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (which had the fingerprints of The Brothers Kennedy all over it).
I do wonder, though, how one can justify quotas in police departments without justifying them in schools and other politicized institutions.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar
Are these the same people bitching about the Dobbs decision? That was hopeless, until it wasn’t. Concealed carry is legal in a lot more places than in 1969. If the other side is all-powerful, how did they let these two slip through their fingers?
Of course, liberal democracy is all about *individuals* and not ‘groups’, however those groups might be defined, either by self identification or official identification. The basic notion was that it is odious to disbar, disqualify or hinder an individual’s applications and progress due to the incidental fact of him belonging to a particular group.
Yes, yes, I can already hear you scream about ‘slavery and Jim Crow’ , ‘women’ etc.
But the point is that slavery and the de facto discrimination against blacks in America is older than the entity of the USA itself. For better or worse, the legacy black population of the USA was seen by almost all thinking men, at the time of independence as being of a profoundly different human type with a very deep and basal incompatibility with the European descended portion of the population, which could never, under any circumstances be bridged, hence the development of two separate and distinct parallel streams of public life.
Largely, the same was thought true of white women, who were basically excluded from public life. Outside of those two excised groupings, basically, the notion of group discrimination was absent.
In the contemporary USA, those who benefit from group based preferences hold more political power than those disadvantaged by it. Hence it will remain and if anything only strengthen.
The supreme irony is that today’s white males are only in a state of subjugation because former generations of white males sold them out. All power, political or otherwise was an absolute white male monopoly – as indeed white males were the power creators and hence power wielders. The breaking of this natural monopoly must be seem, in retrospect, as a self immolation and a rather perverse unilateral act.
I am fully behind any such fights, but a major disadvantage that the right has vis a vis the Courts is that there are a surfeit of Democratic Party appointed Federal District and Circuit Court Judges (as well as more than a handful of Republican appointed Judges) who will simply find creative ways to ignore binding Supreme Court precedent. We saw this with the Heller decision, which was ostensibly a win for gun rights, but which was in many ways disregarded at the retail level in many Circuits. Much like their institutional brethren, they’re just going to ignore the law but this time with the masquerade of having done so behind black robes. The Supreme Court simply doesn’t have the capacity to correct multiple Circuit Courts which intentionally circumvent its precedent. The Supreme Court is also less inclined to do so, as the Press frames all outcomes it doesn’t like from the Supreme Court as the Court itself acting politically rather than a District Judge or a Circuit Court panel (and, now, the Biden Administration) acting politically and daring the Supreme Court to intervene.
Some are political hacks, some not. Non-hack appellate judges are concerned that administrative regulations conform to statutory law and statutory law conform to constitutional provisions. They don’t manufacture sophistic excuses to scotch the enforcement of regulations or statutory law.
Punnin’, tended!
Brilliant stuff.
Orwell quotes are appropriate, so here are a couple.
With apologies to the Bible,
California takes a giant step toward solving the shoplifting problem, as you can tell from this headline but not from the words in the link.https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565
Poof; Just like that it went away.
No thief, no theft.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Achmed E. Newman
From your link:
“Ey— he’s talkin’ to youuuuuu!”
Excellent argumentation and rhetoric by iSteve.
Yahweh-style dictates from an unelected body based on controversial empirical assertions have always troubled me. First, how is it that the body understands reality better than anyone else does? Second, what happens when the weight of evidence becomes overwhelmingly opposite to the empirical finding that the eternally true dictate was based on?
Instead of laboriously disputing definitions, it’s easier to argue that de jure goals uniformly have become de facto quotas.
Grutter’s 25-year regime was justified with the argument that
Demonstrably, exactly the reverse has been the ultimate result. The use of race in admissions has become extravagant rather than narrowly limited. And most of higher education now enforces an iron uniformity of thought, severely violating freedoms of conscience and speech.
Or, consider the eternal truth of Plyler v Doe, decided 5-4, that illegal aliens must be provided public education.
Part of the majority’s decision was that the case had only to do with a “very small subclass of illegal aliens, ‘entire families who have migrated illegally and-for all practical purposes-permanently to the United States.’” “Very small.” Still true?
“There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State’s economy.” Really? This claim is part of the necessary argument that there there be no compelling state interest in excluding illegal aliens from public education. If they weren’t a burden then, are they a burden now? If, partially as a result of Plyler v Doe, they have become a burden, shouldn’t Plyler v Doe become immediately void?
“These children can neither affect their parents’ conduct nor their own undocumented status.” Was it ever true that many illegal migrants were not motivated by obtaining free health, education, and welfare benefits for their family? Next, the children “are present in this country through no fault of their own.” However, Obama’s privileging of child crossings changed all that. Did Obama ban them from public education?
Admitting illegal aliens to public education was justified in part by a state interest in “sustaining our political and cultural heritage.” Ha, ha, really, that was one of the arguments. Maybe the Supremes can start working that idea of a compelling state interest into many upcoming decisions.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
We are married to white women, we’re born from white women, and we raise children to become white women. What helps them helps us; they’re family.
I doubt your basic premise is true, but even if you’re right, it’s only what men have done throughout all of history: help out close family members.
Breaking news. Elon directing attention to Jewish power in a tweet.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1666484466506760193
The tweet explained
Rory’s reaction was embarrassing. Says he still has confidence in Monahan as PGA Commish while admitting Monahan used him as a sacrificial lamb. He thinks LIV players have to be “punished” before being allowed back into PGA events. Hard to believe the Saudis are going to accept that.
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/37812363/rory-mcilroy-hopes-liv-goes-away-confidence-commish
1. Powell (and most of American society) had no idea of the impact of the 1965 immigration act and also illegal immigration in changing demographics. He was looking at at a black/white world, much like the one he had lived in Virginia. A black/white world is a terrible way to analyze America today.
2. Powell had been head of the Richmond School board in the 1960s. He was very aware of the the need to preserve segregation while at the same time following the law. He tried every trick he could think of to do that - while at the same time arguing against the "Massive Resistance" of shutting down public schools. He was innately familiar with the artificial nature of goals vs targets.
3. Powell had a 19th century view of the world and thought the Constitution and the Supreme Court had done the right thing with Brown. Use the law to ensure equality but you can't use the law to reshape society. His view of diversity in affirmative action was ultimately one about elites and about the need for the state to recognize the need for elite initiations to decide what they want. If Harvard wants legacy, they get legacy. If they wants blacks, they get blacks. The state should not tell a private institution what it needs to do to the extent possible.
I think that last view was a bit naive; but the courts quickly slapped down most affirmative action programs after Bakke and it's largely an elite college problem. Honestly, it's really just a Harvard issue. When you drop down to the rest of the Ivy League, black admissions are basically in line with their representation in the middle class (around 5-7%) . Much like New York private schools that admit around a 10% black class. We've seen a resurgence of the disparate impact in the last 10 year which the courts needs to slap down, but affirmative action outside of higher eduction is not much of an issue in America today.Replies: @ATBOTL, @res, @The Germ Theory of Disease
This is a maliciously false statement.
“Another American century incoming.”
I don’t believe humanity could survive another 100 years of GAE.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Conservatives and liberals are united by their worship of women. They always accuse the other of attacking women (abortion, tranny sports, etc.) to garner public sympathy. Neither would touch sex-based AA or any advantage women get in the courts. In fact the GOP might even lean more into this by supporting more female AA to countersignal trannies. I mean, they’ve already turned the man-hating lefty JK Rowling into some sort of trad hero while she still openly despises them. Women make the perfect victims, and in a victim-worshiping culture that’s a huge advantage to any movement.
I think that SCOTUS will rule mostly confirming Steve’s wish list. It will remove extreme anti-white rhetoric & dysfunctional excesses.
But it won’t change the fact that the American nation doesn’t exist anymore. National ethos of Founding Founders & their followers is gone. You once had an 85% white nation with heroes from Jefferson to Lincoln and Lee; now, with whites less than 60% and divided & zombified- this is quite another situation.
OT — It’s Ebba’s birthday.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/06/10/grave-of-swedish-child-terror-victim-ebba-akerlund-desecrated-over-a-hundred-times/
A lot of fine sentiments but at the end of the day, the DIE crowd doesn’t think discrimination is wrong – it’s desirable and pleasurable to apply to the baddies. And although the percentage of the population that gets off on inflicting distress on others through denying them equal treatment is not huge, they occupy the commanding heights of politics, media, academia and increasingly business. Legal and legislative victories are nice, but what really needs to happen is for the actual people behind all this to be afraid of the rest of us.
Exactly. Because the whole DIE thing is as much, if not more, about spiteful feelings against bad whites than it is about any principles of fairness or redress of grievances.
"Legal and legislative victories are nice, but what really needs to happen is for the actual people behind all this to be afraid of the rest of us."
I don't know about the actual people behind all this but much of the visible face of it is liberal white women. They know the whole system is rigged in their favor and they aren't in the least afraid of us.
1. Powell (and most of American society) had no idea of the impact of the 1965 immigration act and also illegal immigration in changing demographics. He was looking at at a black/white world, much like the one he had lived in Virginia. A black/white world is a terrible way to analyze America today.
2. Powell had been head of the Richmond School board in the 1960s. He was very aware of the the need to preserve segregation while at the same time following the law. He tried every trick he could think of to do that - while at the same time arguing against the "Massive Resistance" of shutting down public schools. He was innately familiar with the artificial nature of goals vs targets.
3. Powell had a 19th century view of the world and thought the Constitution and the Supreme Court had done the right thing with Brown. Use the law to ensure equality but you can't use the law to reshape society. His view of diversity in affirmative action was ultimately one about elites and about the need for the state to recognize the need for elite initiations to decide what they want. If Harvard wants legacy, they get legacy. If they wants blacks, they get blacks. The state should not tell a private institution what it needs to do to the extent possible.
I think that last view was a bit naive; but the courts quickly slapped down most affirmative action programs after Bakke and it's largely an elite college problem. Honestly, it's really just a Harvard issue. When you drop down to the rest of the Ivy League, black admissions are basically in line with their representation in the middle class (around 5-7%) . Much like New York private schools that admit around a 10% black class. We've seen a resurgence of the disparate impact in the last 10 year which the courts needs to slap down, but affirmative action outside of higher eduction is not much of an issue in America today.Replies: @ATBOTL, @res, @The Germ Theory of Disease
Alden is going to love that. I’ll let her respond (instead of me) since she has more experience on the ground with that. Suffice it to say I disagree. Perhaps you want to take a look at recent Democratic appointments to the Supreme Court as a starting point?
I truly believe the men of UNZ have not laid eyes on any federal state county or city government employee since 1960.
My thing is anti affirmative action. Because it affects every White person. Most Whites live a lifetime without being a victim of black criminals. But affirmative action affects every aspect of our lives.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Not a fan of that simplistic way of looking at AA (women are the biggest beneficiaries). Here is my take from an earlier comment.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/when-did-american-intelligence-peak/#comment-5926697
Excellent piece! There is also a case to be made, in certain situations, for affirmative action for all, in which every ethnic, racial, religious, and geographic group is represented in proportion to its numbers in the total population. In Ivy League liberal arts admissions, for example, where tomorrow’s cultural elites are first winnowed out.
Every time this comes up is reminder of just how egregiously bad the “Brown” decision was.
The Supremes could have reached the same decision (for Linda Brown) with straight up 14th Amendment equal protection reasoning and we could–in theory–have avoided decades of legal caviling, abuse and kritarchy.
Instead, they coughed up a decision based in–complete nonsense–sociology, some sort of psychoanalysis of what how black kids react to segregation and what they need to learn, as if that’s any business for courts to figure out and make policy upon. And in the process, opened the door for decades of destruction by … well, the usual suspects, the maniacal minoritarian wreckers, giving us busing, energized white flight, busing wars, AA, “diversity”, disparate impact. Stripping the American people of their natural rights and self-government. Really opening the door for just evil destructive people to have their way with America.
Summary: Without overwhelming evidence of injury, there is no rationale for overturning a long-standing Supreme court decision. 'Equal protection' in the abstract doesn't mean much. I live in my house and my dog lives in the doghouse. Both of us are protected equally from the elements. Have we satisfied 'Equal protection' clause? It depends on who does the comparison.Replies: @bomag
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
You are just like the woman in the old joke where the man asks a woman at a bar if she would sleep with him for one million dollars. She replies “Of course, but you don’t have the money.” Then he asks her if she would sleep with him for ten dollars. She replies, outraged, “Do you think I’m a prostitute!?!” The man answers “We have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price.”
Once you give up the idea of making policy based on white group interests, you have signed on to doing whatever anti-white liberals want. You cannot accept discriminating against whites to help blacks a little bit and then make it stop because you personally think it’s enough now. An 85% majority whose leaders allows a single one of its members to be hurt even the tiniest amount in an effort to give favoritism to a foreign race has already lost all pride and self-respect. Once you cross that line even a micrometer, you are all the way across the line. Failure to understand this is why we are where we are now.
It is not accepting or agreeing with an opinion of others to state that opinion even in its most defensible form. It is clear that I made the point subsequently that both: 1) the conditions have materially changed since 1978 such that the policy is much worse and much more burdensome than when it was implemented; and, 2) the primary beneficiaries (blacks) did not behave as predicted when the policy was implemented, making it a failure on its own terms.
The Sailer solution might have been possible years ago but now it is unlikely. It’s enemies are too numerous and too strong now. “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.” (attributed to Louis Veuillot).
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Good point, Women have benefited the most from affirmative action and men have been harmed the most. This ends up hurting White women more because now they cannot find suitable husbands.
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
This is exactly right and is why I no longer want to hear “process-based” arguments.
Example, Rep. Massie (who I greatly respect in general) opposes E-Verify because he’s worried it would be a way to deny employment to people legally eligible for a job. That is true, but the fact is that the feds and corporations will deny employment to anyone they don’t like with or without E-Verify, and whether it is constitutional or not. They’ll just do it and nobody will stop them.
California takes a giant step toward solving the shoplifting problem, as you can tell from this headline but not from the words in the link.https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565
Poof; Just like that it went away.
No thief, no theft.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Achmed E. Newman
Nice one. Even better than the original! Thanks.
14 a) For more than 60 years, courts and administrative agencies have used “disparate impact” to enforce civil rights laws. If, for example, an employer requires that applicants for a certain job have a four-year college degree, the resulting pool of eligible candidates might have fewer blacks than are present in the employer’s overall labor market. Under these circumstances, the employer will be vulnerable to litigation brought by private citizens or government agencies, which can argue that the job standard’s disparate impact on black job-seekers constitutes a discriminatory personnel practice. The resulting burden of proof is on the employer to show that the college-degree requirement is a business necessity. Insisting or even demonstrating that no animus against black people played a role in instituting the college-degree requirement will not get the firm off the hook.
In keeping with the principle that civil rights protections against discriminatory treatment extend to all Americans, disparate-impact enforcement of civil rights laws should either be abandoned or should protect members of every significant subgroup of the American population. For example, a college could stop using standardized test scores as part of its admissions process in favor of an opaque “holistic” review of applications. If white or Asian applicants were consistently underrepresented on campus as a result of the holistic admissions process, they could make a case that it has had an adverse disparate impact on them, and should be replaced with a process that does not. Victories in such lawsuits would give rise to the idea that the disparate-impact test should be abandoned. Whether it is or not, it should either be used to bolster any American’s claim to have been the victim of discrimination, or no one’s claim to have been so victimized.
Looking back, one may wonder why they were all so stupid (or evil). But the facts are more complicated.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board#background
Summary: Without overwhelming evidence of injury, there is no rationale for overturning a long-standing Supreme court decision. ‘Equal protection’ in the abstract doesn’t mean much. I live in my house and my dog lives in the doghouse. Both of us are protected equally from the elements. Have we satisfied ‘Equal protection’ clause? It depends on who does the comparison.
Also highlights the change in tactics, from wanting equal access that would give equal outcomes, to demanding outsized outcomes to compensate for past inequality.
Another intentional self hating post by some troll.
“All is lost”, etc.
Why do you come here? Should you not be emigrating to Russia by now?
Though one recent explanation for the Russian invasion of Ukraine (per WSJ columnist) is their own fear of being overwhelmed by the Central Asian Muslim former “republics” whose birthrates vastly exceed that of White Russians. Projected to be only about 70% or less of the total population n a few years.
Impoverished Central Asian “Russians” are less prone to the destructive alcoholism of White Russians, and their ongoing low standard of living doesn’t deter them from bigger families, unlike richer White Russians. So by re-absorbing White Ukrainians the “heritage” Eastern Europeans won’t be outnumbered so quickly. Though many of the dead Russian soldiers are those.
Odd that this verifiable population demographic argument, being also quite racist, is not yet advanced by the White racists here on Unz. Maybe too embarrassing.
So Hispanics or Turko-Mongolians? Which Great Power has the bigger future demographic problem?
Right back at you Comrade…
The Times has a take.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/opinion/resistance-black-advancement-affirmative-action.html
Anon[291] writes:
“Russia-China cope. Another American century incoming” (That’s the entire message).
Somebody please translate this into English. What does the hyphen mean? What copes with what? In what way will 2024-2124 be an American century?
You’re on a HBD blog and still don’t get it.
Whatever the heck goes on in Russia (doomed) or China (hard to say) is not the issue.
When I was born in the ’50s, American had about 150 million whites (90% of its population) was about 5% of the world population and accounted for something like 1/3 of the world’s GDP. That was “American century”.
Even the cohorts being born now are only 50% white–and ok, 5% Asian–are less than 2m people and there are more than that number coming across the border. I.e. we’ve already slumped 1/3 or even 1/2 of the way toward Brazil in new cohorts already baked in. The white population is falling … and every year millions–mostly Latino but also lots of blacks–invade across the border, plus the million plus cranking through the legal process.
Brazil is a functional place and millions lead wonderful lives there, but it is not kicking up “Brazillian centuries”.
The US will be a significant player in the 21st century–at least the 1st half–unless China rapidly gets it’s fertility/eugenic act together. But this simply isn’t 1945. And never can be again without a lot of serious and unpleasant “work”.
Oh c’mon. You must have thought the college all-stars were going to beat the Green Bay Packers some year.
The only real solution is a compromise. The best way to do this is to re-establish freedom of association for the private sector - if they want DEI/CRT, let them have it. But that means no public funding, no tax breaks, no non-profit status. All public institutions, and any organization receiving taxpayer money, must be strictly meritocratic and race cannot be considered. At least then there will be a sorting out and a multitude of options. It also gives some private organizations the strategic window to separate themselves from the pack. Let your competitors stay woke and make a dash for meritocracy and achievement! There will be some CEOs and College Presidents who will make that choice, then we'll see who rises and falls in market share and the rankings.Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Alden
That. Won’t. Happen.
We’re in a religious war. The other side can’t accept a competing morality. There is only one God – their God.
It’s why they’re freaking out about China, Russia and other countries not accepting their morality. It makes people question our rulers’ contention that they are on the side of angels and that the arc of history will lead to their utopia.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Woman are and have been historically the largest group of American population.
Until antibiotics and birth control, females either died more often young due to childbearing or were burdened with raising their children. Since the 60s and prior, no longer.
Skill and competence levels are widely distributed in females and most of the proclaimed discrimination against them is based on facts, not prejudice. Or their choices, as the weaker and more emotion prone sex, to avoid many occupations which require more physical strength or emotional toughness.
Men are from Mars, women from Venus.
Women promoted above their personal level of emotional stability and resilience are prone to backstabbing and minor complaints over “hurt feelings” and inability to handle interpersonal stress. Sure male sexual aggressiveness is annoying but biology is destiny. Hard wired, and capable of being controlled in public and social settings by old fashioned manners and etiquette. Female singers and performers cash in on this while often hypocritically griping about sexism.
For every Harry Styles there are dozens of Brittney Spears.
Also, in general women are less analytical and more emotion oriented. Probably based upon cultural genetics.
Few women want dangerous occupations or physicial work or those which require analytics and emotional hardiness. Some do but not many. I don’t see any female trash collectors.
It is no surprise that Social Media censors are mainly females.
There are sound natural reasons why few males are suited for professional child care or teaching younger children. Raising children in families is more important than careerism.
While I generally oppose government subsidies, a European style “child allowance” for stay-at-home mothers up to a certain age is an idea worth exploring.
Most of the job related discrimination over pay can be justified by productivity differences. And envy is a common female character flaw, easily now blamed on discrimination.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” — Hillary Clinton gave, in 1998, at a conference on domestic violence in El SalvadorReplies: @epebble
Why regurgitate the arguments for sensible occupational requirements that were struck down 52 years ago?
Teeny tiny little 5 ft 90 pound Asian women cops and even firefighters. That’s the law since 1971.
It’s 2023 It’s 2023. It’s 2023
Whatever the heck goes on in Russia (doomed) or China (hard to say) is not the issue.
When I was born in the '50s, American had about 150 million whites (90% of its population) was about 5% of the world population and accounted for something like 1/3 of the world's GDP. That was "American century".
Even the cohorts being born now are only 50% white--and ok, 5% Asian--are less than 2m people and there are more than that number coming across the border. I.e. we've already slumped 1/3 or even 1/2 of the way toward Brazil in new cohorts already baked in. The white population is falling ... and every year millions--mostly Latino but also lots of blacks--invade across the border, plus the million plus cranking through the legal process.
Brazil is a functional place and millions lead wonderful lives there, but it is not kicking up "Brazillian centuries".
The US will be a significant player in the 21st century--at least the 1st half--unless China rapidly gets it's fertility/eugenic act together. But this simply isn't 1945. And never can be again without a lot of serious and unpleasant "work".Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
Ha. Hit the wrong button. Totally agree.
The Hebrew hullabaloo over so-called “judicial review” almost caused a civil war in Israel and I am shocked that this damned deference to the US Supreme Court and this so-called “judicial review” hasn’t started Civil War II in the USA.
SO-CALLED “JUDICIAL REVIEW” CAN GO SCREW!
DEFENESTRATE THE US SUPREME COURT NOW!
The nation-wrecking devil dogs in black dresses on the US Supreme Court should be impeached and ignored and they should never have accrued the political power they currently have.
IT’S OKAY TO ABOLISH THE US SUPREME COURT
Remember, until Gorsuch — whose surname means a stream so piddling that a goose could ford it — there were no Americans of British Protestant ancestry on the US Supreme Court. Some English drunk filled his belly with ale and then released it; a goose stepped over it and that’s the origins of Gorsuch’s surname.
Gorsuch — goose ford — was raised a Catholic.
All current justices on the US Supreme Court must be immediately impeached; that is my Swiftian modest proposal. After all US Supreme Court justices have been impeached, then the US Supreme Court must be occupied by White Protestant Southerners. Other than that, the US Supreme Court must be abolished immediately.
Asian Indian Bobby Jindal has a better sense of humor than Nikki Haley, and, I think, Jindal has 30 IQ points on Nikki. In 2015, Jindal said hold my beer and he called for the abolishment of the US Supreme Court. I agree with Jindal on that.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bobby-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-of-the-court-2015-6
Tweets from 2015:
Brazil.
With respect to collegiate athletics, these were warped at the outset.
In the late 19th century intramural collegiate athletics became intercollegiate ones. School teams versus school teams in most sports.
Shortly thereafter due to serious injuries and deaths. Teddy Roosevelt set up the legal monopoly cartel run by the NCAA. Athletes could get free tuition and room and board but not paid.
In another 100 years due to expensive commercialization of college sports, especially football and basketball, huge money was earned by top competitive (and very large) universities but even personal endorsement money was stolen by the colleges. Now that has finally changed.
No other nation has semi pro sports teams pretending to be “student athletes” at all.
So this chicken has come home to roost. Racketeering Big U sports is now having to give up some of their cartel money. Why are their mainly Woke and useless U presidents and coaches being paid upwards of millions? For excellence in academics? Or cashing in on sports revenues?
Warped beyond recognition? Warped at birth. Let pro sports support their own starter leagues, not rely on laughable “academic” facades. Alumni wilt have to find some other vicarious endeavor to relive their lost golden youth. Just like every other nation’s graduates on the planet.
The response of The Men of Unz- and, I’d hazard a guess, The Woman of Unz too, to the Taki Piece is predicable, that of the unschooled wider Wokery might be a laugh. Maybe you can slap together a precis of Twitter etc in a couple of days.
“Therefore, mandatory training classes preaching the antiwhite doctrines of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and/or Critical Race Theory represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment for white employees”
Wow, just wow. First, a person who works for a company and is required to take such training understands that may be part of their job. Certainly they can go through the motions or even decline. Regardless, if a person doesn’t like it, leave for another position. Second, Mr. Sailer assumes without evidence that those doctrines are anti white. What is his reasoning? And, third, how does CRT represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment? Where is his argument? What legal analysts even support his assertion?
1. Powell (and most of American society) had no idea of the impact of the 1965 immigration act and also illegal immigration in changing demographics. He was looking at at a black/white world, much like the one he had lived in Virginia. A black/white world is a terrible way to analyze America today.
2. Powell had been head of the Richmond School board in the 1960s. He was very aware of the the need to preserve segregation while at the same time following the law. He tried every trick he could think of to do that - while at the same time arguing against the "Massive Resistance" of shutting down public schools. He was innately familiar with the artificial nature of goals vs targets.
3. Powell had a 19th century view of the world and thought the Constitution and the Supreme Court had done the right thing with Brown. Use the law to ensure equality but you can't use the law to reshape society. His view of diversity in affirmative action was ultimately one about elites and about the need for the state to recognize the need for elite initiations to decide what they want. If Harvard wants legacy, they get legacy. If they wants blacks, they get blacks. The state should not tell a private institution what it needs to do to the extent possible.
I think that last view was a bit naive; but the courts quickly slapped down most affirmative action programs after Bakke and it's largely an elite college problem. Honestly, it's really just a Harvard issue. When you drop down to the rest of the Ivy League, black admissions are basically in line with their representation in the middle class (around 5-7%) . Much like New York private schools that admit around a 10% black class. We've seen a resurgence of the disparate impact in the last 10 year which the courts needs to slap down, but affirmative action outside of higher eduction is not much of an issue in America today.Replies: @ATBOTL, @res, @The Germ Theory of Disease
As usual and as is well known here, anecdotes are not data and data are not meta-data and so forth. But multi-anecdotes can be illuminating, even if they don’t actually prove a point.
In that spirit: when I was at Harvard decades ago, I did not meet a single black student who was sub-standard or “affirmative action goofball” or anything like that. They were all highly intelligent accomplished people who had total business being there (and believe me, I know how to condescend to idiots) who never rated a second of condescension. Some of them were my colleagues in fact. But of course, who knows what it’s like now.
If you wanted to look for patterns, they were mostly arts-oriented types, not physics or engineering dudes. But then again that was me too. And some of them unfortunately were sort of high-end crazy: a few went over the cliff and kinda-sorta committed suicide. But that’s a personality type (as I know from bitter experience) not a categorical racial sort of thing; but one can make correlations as one sees fit.
This brightened my day. It’s hard not to laugh, so you should.
Too many snouts in the trough.
http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/06/chicagos-black-community-slams-city.html
“A lot of fine sentiments but at the end of the day, the DIE crowd doesn’t think discrimination is wrong – it’s desirable and pleasurable to apply to the baddies.”
Exactly. Because the whole DIE thing is as much, if not more, about spiteful feelings against bad whites than it is about any principles of fairness or redress of grievances.
“Legal and legislative victories are nice, but what really needs to happen is for the actual people behind all this to be afraid of the rest of us.”
I don’t know about the actual people behind all this but much of the visible face of it is liberal white women. They know the whole system is rigged in their favor and they aren’t in the least afraid of us.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Of course. The biggest beneficiaries of AA for women are always the wives or daughters of the most powerful men.
First of all, don’t conflate ‘conservatives’ with ‘white nationalists’. The two have little in common, since WNs have economic views that are distinctly left-wing (unions, tariffs, high minimum wage, etc.). They just combine that with a race-oriented worldview. WNs are not particularly fond of the GOP, whether the GOPe or Trump or even a fringe person like Ron Paul. Any quick glace of this website will reveal that. They just hate Democrats slightly more.
In other words, they are the philosophical remnants of that German regime from 1933-45. Left-wing economics, but a race-centric core to their beliefs.
Secondly, remember that radical feminism and White Nationalism have a very substantial overlap. It is like they are from the same subgroup, but the men of that group become WNs and the women become the fat bluehaired feminists.
You should know all about that ; )
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
There is absolutely no excuse for violating the basic guarantees of the Constitution…The opinion was disgraceful, and needs to be overruled in its entirety…
The Fourteenth Amendment? The “Framers intent” of the Fourteenth Amendment? Don’t make me laugh!!!!
I’d love to see the “Muh Democracy!” types square the procedures (fascist) that brought about the ratification of their august and sacrosanct 14th Amendment.
Let’s just say there wasn’t the kind of democratic consensus behind the 14th that one would expect for such a society changing piece of legislation – one that despite it’s objectively neutral language (privileges and immunities, due process, equal protection) has led to seemingly endless judicial mischief. I mean, who knew it meant states were prohibited from defining what a marriage was and wasn’t?
The definition of “White Privilege” is that white people have conferred unfair advantages upon each other in this civilization which has resulted in the unnatural state of “White Supremacy”, where whites have an unearned amount of wealth and position that they have unfairly hoarded for themselves from others.
Reparations is the cure for this unnatural state of affairs, as well as whites admitting their ‘White Privilege’ and becoming antiracist allies in the fight against “White Supremacy”. Being for Affirmative Quotas in education, jobs, loans and being against racist tools of white supremacy like standardized tests and disproportionate incarceration and disciplinary measures against people of color are ways whites can be allies.
There is no arguing with a set of assumptions like that. If things aren’t even, the Alpha race that has more stuff and experiences less punishments is obviously screwing over the Beta race. The only solution is “Equity” by which the Beta race is given as much wealth as the Alpha race, and only punished as often and with the same severity as the Alpha race.
All other outcomes are racist and perpetuate white privelege and white supremacy.
All this stuff is is Marxism by race. It has to be completely eschewed for the U.S. to remain competitive long term.
An additional 45 years of mass third world immigration, together with the creation of additional artificial identities has changed the calculus entirely.
My concern is that at this point despite the unpopularity of Affirmative Action with the public, and even after a Supreme Court opinion finding it to be Unconstitutional for government and government funded institutions to employ it as policy, elite opinion is contrary to the public will and the Supreme Court majority. They will simply continue to do what they want to do, and depend upon procedural manipulations and bureaucratic chicanery to avoid accountability.Replies: @International Jew, @SFG, @ATBOTL, @Rusty Tailgate, @pyrrhus, @BenjaminL
Yep. Extremely interesting & depressing article by Jesse Merriam on why affirmative action is never going away
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-affirmative-action-regime/
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Got any specifics or details to reinforce your argument?
Two avenues of research occur to me:
1. How does one account for the fact that strict equity in the high pressure professions results in women who can do as good a job as men … during careers that are less than half as long? Women pharmacists work 35 hours a week to men’s 45. Forty percent of women doctors six years out of residency are part time, in a job that doesn’t require an M.D. degree, or out of the workforce altogether, versus five percent of men (and the discrepancy is worse in surgery and non-work-life-balance specialties).
2. Entire bullshit job categories have been created that hire mostly women for six figure salaries. When a company’s survival is at risk, as with Twitter, the owner can simply eliminate entire female-dominated departments and the company, if anything, operates smoother. But some of these bullshit jobs deal with federal regulation paperwork, thus amounting to a tax that redistributes money to women.Replies: @Houston 1992
Better than South Africa. I guess.
In that spirit: when I was at Harvard decades ago, I did not meet a single black student who was sub-standard or "affirmative action goofball" or anything like that. They were all highly intelligent accomplished people who had total business being there (and believe me, I know how to condescend to idiots) who never rated a second of condescension. Some of them were my colleagues in fact. But of course, who knows what it's like now.
If you wanted to look for patterns, they were mostly arts-oriented types, not physics or engineering dudes. But then again that was me too. And some of them unfortunately were sort of high-end crazy: a few went over the cliff and kinda-sorta committed suicide. But that's a personality type (as I know from bitter experience) not a categorical racial sort of thing; but one can make correlations as one sees fit.Replies: @anonymous
So you disagree with Professor Mansfield.
The only real solution is a compromise. The best way to do this is to re-establish freedom of association for the private sector - if they want DEI/CRT, let them have it. But that means no public funding, no tax breaks, no non-profit status. All public institutions, and any organization receiving taxpayer money, must be strictly meritocratic and race cannot be considered. At least then there will be a sorting out and a multitude of options. It also gives some private organizations the strategic window to separate themselves from the pack. Let your competitors stay woke and make a dash for meritocracy and achievement! There will be some CEOs and College Presidents who will make that choice, then we'll see who rises and falls in market share and the rankings.Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Alden
I love the idea, but how do you convince a blood-sucking parasite to abandon its host?
This is quite interesting and a good common sense compromise. I’m trying to think of an analogous legal doctrine. In general these kinds of compromises are left unspoken, which causes all kinds of problems.
But boy would there be a ton of litigation over whether situations are police-y or fireman-y in nature. And I guess this would also cover sex disparities.
==
Ideally, public policy would be one of strict impartiality in employment and / or service provision by public agencies, government corporations, privately-owned natural monopolies, acute-care hospitals, and a selection of enterprises providing services for travelers. Otherwise, freedom of contract and association would prevail (though activity in workplaces analogous to common crimes might be defined as tortious). You might require corporations to provide an audited statement on the demographics of their work force, stock and flow, but that would be it. 'Desegregation of schools' would be achieved through funding mechanisms which reduced the variability of per-pupil expenditure between districts and schools and with the use of voucher systems and open enrollment rather than busing. "Strict impartiality" would be achieved by making use of blindly graded examinations to regulate recruitment and promotion, chips falling where they may and conducting audits of supervisors and managers whose discretionary selections from the list-of-three produced by such examinations had abnormal patterns or whose demotions and dismissals had a certain pattern (with the proviso that audits don't always lead to sanctions). Audits of the disciplinary decisions of public school administrators might also be conducted.
==
I'll wager if you review the private correspondence of characters like Joseph Rauh and Thurgood Marshall, you'll discover that the entire 'civil rights' enterprise was a bait-and-switch scheme from the beginning. You sell the notion that we ought to dismantle institutional practices which are manifestly unfair and institutional / social practices which are contrived and generate disagreeable confrontations and bad feeling. Your real object is a social engineering scheme to 'uplift' the black population rather than just quit getting in their faces. See Ed Koch on his Georgetown cocktail party confrontation with Rauh in 1971 ("he was positively Churchillian"). People aren't playdough, so social engineering schemes are likely to fail, especially when you begin with the assumption that you must give people things and never discipline them. At that point, the social engineering schemes morphed into efforts to abuse wage earners and small businessmen with white skin.Replies: @res, @Achmed E. Newman
Don’t do it, Art! How much money have you lost already on the Unz Review?
I couldn’t help it – I kid on here occasionally. ;-} I agree with you here. There were probably quite a few followers who THOUGHT that all they wanted was “to be treated fairly”, but when the White Man was getting treated unfairly as a result of it being a bait-and-switch deal, that didn’t bother them a bit.
Pandora’s out in the barn with her box wide open, and the cat never said a mumblin’ word… in the meantime, the Pope’s out shitting in the woods. I think that’s how it goes …
https://twitter.com/gavinhamrick_/status/1666506325499445252
I’d be interested in some actual data here also.
Two avenues of research occur to me:
1. How does one account for the fact that strict equity in the high pressure professions results in women who can do as good a job as men … during careers that are less than half as long? Women pharmacists work 35 hours a week to men’s 45. Forty percent of women doctors six years out of residency are part time, in a job that doesn’t require an M.D. degree, or out of the workforce altogether, versus five percent of men (and the discrepancy is worse in surgery and non-work-life-balance specialties).
2. Entire bullshit job categories have been created that hire mostly women for six figure salaries. When a company’s survival is at risk, as with Twitter, the owner can simply eliminate entire female-dominated departments and the company, if anything, operates smoother. But some of these bullshit jobs deal with federal regulation paperwork, thus amounting to a tax that redistributes money to women.
So, what’s your take on ‘Hindu nationalism’, Modi and the BJP?
You should know all about that ; )
Two avenues of research occur to me:
1. How does one account for the fact that strict equity in the high pressure professions results in women who can do as good a job as men … during careers that are less than half as long? Women pharmacists work 35 hours a week to men’s 45. Forty percent of women doctors six years out of residency are part time, in a job that doesn’t require an M.D. degree, or out of the workforce altogether, versus five percent of men (and the discrepancy is worse in surgery and non-work-life-balance specialties).
2. Entire bullshit job categories have been created that hire mostly women for six figure salaries. When a company’s survival is at risk, as with Twitter, the owner can simply eliminate entire female-dominated departments and the company, if anything, operates smoother. But some of these bullshit jobs deal with federal regulation paperwork, thus amounting to a tax that redistributes money to women.Replies: @Houston 1992
Your data on women MDs seems plausible — but singly have a good source ?
https://www.aamc.org/news/why-women-leave-medicine
If I mischaracterized the data, let me know. I realize my anti-woman spin is the opposite of all media reports on the study, which framed it as proof of misogynistic discrimination in medicine, rather than a career personality mismatch due to gender life preference differences.
This Iranian-American (I think) woman took up a scarce surgery residency only to burn out and quit to go back to school to get a Ph.D in some sort of grievance studies, and now she seems to be a professional anti-male harridan:
https://www.tiktok.com/@arghavansallesmdphd?_t=8czVnSfIbg1&_r=1
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSLYEGFSC/
There was a research report that was reported on here and there. This seems to be one media account (the one that came up on the top of Google’s search results when I cut and pasted what I wrote):
https://www.aamc.org/news/why-women-leave-medicine
If I mischaracterized the data, let me know. I realize my anti-woman spin is the opposite of all media reports on the study, which framed it as proof of misogynistic discrimination in medicine, rather than a career personality mismatch due to gender life preference differences.
This Iranian-American (I think) woman took up a scarce surgery residency only to burn out and quit to go back to school to get a Ph.D in some sort of grievance studies, and now she seems to be a professional anti-male harridan:
https://www.tiktok.com/@arghavansallesmdphd?_t=8czVnSfIbg1&_r=1
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSLYEGFSC/
Lewis Powell wasn’t naive, he was dishonest. He knew exactly what he was doing. It’s not that affirmative action (AA) in college admissions seemed reasonable at the time, but that now we know better. We always knew that AA was madness and, if anything, no academics speak up against it today (or they claim, as do republicans, that it is blacks who are somehow harmed by it).
(Everyone used to know about racial IQ differences, but today, most people don’t. I have all these books on education, by communists and republicans alike, that either deny IQ, or completely ignore it.)
Grutter was also completely dishonest. When Sandra Day O’Connor spoke of a 25-year limit on AA, she didn’t mean that; she was just a republican kicking the can down the road, ‘til she was long retired, and probably dead.
Race quotas have been a disaster in police departments. They have permitted black supremacist, and now reconquista gangs, to take over many departments. These gangs with guns, handcuffs, and arrest powers aid and abet black and hispanic criminals, while disenfranchising White and asian civilians, beyond what White cops have already done to them.
AA was illegal from the get-go. It violated the 14th Amendment clause of equality before the law, and the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act.
Before it was enacted, Hubert Humphrey declared that if the CRA called for quotas, he would eat the law on the Senate floor. For many years (during the present century), I assumed that Hubie had lied. He hadn’t. However, the moment Johnson signed the CRA into law, America’s ruling class undertook a massive expansion of AA. That required a conspiracy so immense among that class, whereby they all agreed that the CRA was a quota bill.
The ruling class supported AA as a pillar of its class war against the White working class, and more recently, also the White middle class.
Problem. Whites are main instigators of this, dividing whites between the Good Whites who are into fashionable ideas and the Bad Whites, the unrepentant deplorables. Jews shaped this narrative, and many whites bought it, even conservatives who draw the line between us 'good conservatives' and those 'evil' people like race realists and the like. Didn't National Review purge Derbyshire?
but to articulate that civil rights are inclusive. No race is excluded.
'Inclusive' has multiple meanings. Conservative might like it to mean all are included in an open competition, but given the HBD factors, even those who are included are effectively excluded. How many Mexicans in the L.A. Lakers team? They are included in the competition but can't compete with blacks, even though LA is heavily brown, far more than black.
So, 'inclusion' has come to mean the need for quotas to include those who can't win in the competition. Now, if this was admitted openly, it wouldn't be so bad. Blacks are lower in IQ and black culture isn't conducive to learning. So, the only way to have more blacks in higher positions is via quotas. Admitting that would at least be honest. But the failures of blacks is attributed to 'racism', which in this day and age, should be bogus to all. It's so bogus that they came up with 'systemic racism', i.e. even if society rid itself of 'racist' policies, the problem is so deeply ingrained due to history that black are still suffering from various form of discrimination that whites aren't even consciously aware of. It's dumb but presented in pseudo-intellectual terms that hoodwink a lot of people.
Therefore, mandatory training classes preaching the antiwhite doctrines of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and/or Critical Race Theory represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment for white employees.
Correlation isn't causation but this DEI gained in steam just when Jewish Power kept going through the roof. And it went totally psycho with the rise of MAGA. Could it be DEI is a browbeating of whites to rob them of pride and agency, thereby more compliant to the identity and agenda of another group, esp the Jews on top.
Take NYT. It features a lot of blackity yakking at whites, but who are the real bigshots at NYT? Probably not the type who go around saying, "me dumb polack".
Also, if whites aren't included for protection, how come Jews get more protection than even blacks and others even though they count as white and are the richest people in the US?
Statements of support for DIE/CRT by holders of powerful positions in institutions are to be taken as prima facie evidence of intention to discriminate illegally against whites and/or Asians.
Even though the suit was brought forth by Asians, most Asians are Democratic and in fact support AA for blacks at the expense of Asians. They got the submissive gene, always eager for approval b the prevailing norms. This is even truer among the Asian elites who only imitate and do as told.
The suit was brought forth by those rejected by the colleges of their choice. Had they been admitted, they would have joined with wokeness and made noises about 'diversity'.
Also, these Asians don't care about whites and haven't the guts, like Ron Unz, the mention the Jewish factor behind this.
At US corporations, Asians are among the most vocal supporters and commissars of wokeness, along with the Good Whites. This talk of Asian-White unity in being unjustly treated is a total fantasy. Asians go with the strong horse and they join with blacks and Diversity to dump on whites. There are outliers but few and far between in elite circles.
In law, the word “equity” does not mean equality of outcome. “Equity” as recently redefined is no part of the Constitution.
Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Constitution in true practice wouldn't allow the state suppression of BDS. The only time the Constitution matters is when the rich and powerful invoke it get what they want. When Jews needed free speech, they got it. Now, they don't want free speech, and it's been suppressed all over, even via state-industry collusion.
Historically, supreme court just pulled things out of its ass, like same-sex marriage. It's a garbage institution.
Also, CA has shown that even if AA is overturned, there are so many 'holistics' means to have AA by other means, and people just don't have the time and money to sue the institutions over this.
Affirmative action discrimination against whites and Asians cannot be justified on the grounds that they are the “majority.”
South Africa and Malaysia where something like AA is for the majority. In the US too when a proto-AA was used for white Christians in favor of minority Jews who were entering the Ivies in alarming numbers through much of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if AA was usually used to favor the majority, like Russians over Jews in the Soviet Union via its own form of AA.
The United States legal system is not in the business of enforcing a “racial reckoning.” We treat individuals as individuals.
LOL. Tell that to the Palestinian Americans who must sign loyalty pledges to Israel(a nation that oppresses their ethnic kin) to work in certain areas in many states.
I don't recall reading a Taki article about the unfair treatment of Palestinian-American in violation of the Constitution.
Justice Lewis Powell’s decision in the 1978 Bakke case in which he asserted that affirmative action in college admissions is needed to promote diversity of opinion and expression on campus seemed reasonable at the time, but it has since obviously proved to be completely wrong empirically. Instead, quotas lead to students with chips on their shoulder about their intellectual deficiencies boosting cancel culture on campus to assuage their self-esteem.
This is only half-true. The reason for the rise of wokeness in institutions owes less to AA than the radical or extreme personalities of certain groups. After all, Jews were not the beneficiaries of AA, and if anything, quotas were historically used against them. Yet, they led the way in radicalizing the campus. Homos were also admitted to college on the basis of merit, and whatever one thinks of stuff like gender studies, most homos have historically not been AA cases(unless black). Yet, they too played a big role in pushing the politics of resentment. Those are two high-achieving groups.
The only AA case that pushed radicalization are blacks but many of their theories are vulgarized forms of Jewish critical theories. And the woke whites. These are not AA cases and many art smart, but they are crazy.
The rise of censoriousness and purity spirals mainly came from high achieving groups who didn't rely on AA. Charles Murray was nearly lynched and scalped by children of rich white families.
The problem of Academic Prohibition owes to strong personalities beating weaker personalities. Over time, both liberals(real ones) and conservatives lost out because they're more tolerant or middle-of-the-road, and more committed to fairness principles. In contrast, the radical Jews, woke whites, fanatical types of all kind won't take no for an answer, aka by any means necessary.
There is also the factor of money. A lot of donations come from Jews, and Jews are not above using their influence to shape academic discourse, getting certain voices fired or banned, like Salaita the Palestinian from the Univ of Illinois. And Norman Finkelstein robbed of tenure at DePaul.
Jews howl about PC only when they come under pressure but aren't averse to censorship to shut down speech they don't like. Like Bari Weiss who tried to suppress Arab-American professors but then later whined about how her speech was being ignored. Of course, she never defended the rights of true dissidents like Kevin MacDonald.
What to do about AA? Limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of Slave Ancestry and no one else. Also, time to acknowledge blacks need AA not due to 'systemic racism' but lower IQ which is indisputable. And their culture sucks.Replies: @Art Deco, @Alden
Didn’t National Review purge Derbyshire?
==
National Review had every reason to remove Derbyshire from the masthead in 2006, when he placed a piece in the New English Review that amounted to a lunatic attack on a book written by one of the magazine’s staff editors. For reasons obscure, nothing was done. Six years later, Derbyshire published an article in Taki’s satirizing ‘the talk’ black parents supposedly give to their children. The article said the quiet part out loud. It made several points: ‘the talk’ is humbug as blacks are very seldom in danger of violent assaults from whites; navigating urban life requires you understand the sort of situations to avoid, and among them are venues and events where high concentrations of blacks gather (particularly suddenly high concentrations); don’t live in municipalities run by black politicians; and social status competition among bourgeois whites involves cultivating black friends. The first point is true, the last point was stated in a mildly supercilious way, and the second and third points might have benefited from some qualifications. Lowry let it slide when Derbyshire made a vitriolic attack on a large segment of the magazine’s actual readers, then unloads Derbyshire when he says something mildly offensive to people who despise NR‘s readers stem-to-stern.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Women are not the biggest receiptients of affirmative action. Women gets no advantage over men for magnet high schools, selective college admission, professional and graduate school admission, civil service hiring, or even most academic hiring.
In reality, a white non-Hispanic female needs a better resume to get admitted to the most selective university as compared to a white non-Hispanic male. If an selective university is 50/50 male/female, there they are using affirmative action for males.
They did, in 1963, 20-17. That year was the last time the All Stars defeated the professional team. The final record was 29-9-2 in favor of the professionals (the AFL won one game pre-merger, the Jets).
White females are the biggest beneficiaries of Title IX since white and Asian females have so much better resumes than black or Hispanic females. Look at the NCAA championships in the non-revenue sports. The teams are dominated by upper middle class white females.
Who are they?
Gotta be them blacks right?
Hispanics maybe?
It’s women.
Women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action but nary a word from conservatives about this.
Why?Replies: @Sleep, @Pop Warner, @res, @Travis, @Muggles, @Thomm, @AceDeuce, @Guest007, @ben tillman
Because your premise is false.
https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/data/2022-facts-enrollment-graduates-and-md-phd-data
It does look like women have caught up and exceeded men in graduations.
No comment on AA. These women are likely to be genuinely talented. It is very difficult to go through medical school, get board certified and practice successfully without very high skills and talent. But if one wants data on medical school graduation of M.D. and Ph.D., it is here:
https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/data/2022-facts-enrollment-graduates-and-md-phd-data
It does look like women have caught up and exceeded men in graduations.
Once you give up the idea of making policy based on white group interests, you have signed on to doing whatever anti-white liberals want. You cannot accept discriminating against whites to help blacks a little bit and then make it stop because you personally think it's enough now. An 85% majority whose leaders allows a single one of its members to be hurt even the tiniest amount in an effort to give favoritism to a foreign race has already lost all pride and self-respect. Once you cross that line even a micrometer, you are all the way across the line. Failure to understand this is why we are where we are now.Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
You appear to have mistaken me for someone who was both alive and in some position of institutional power when Bakke was decided, or perhaps your wife whom I am certain was well-compensated in your apocryphal anecdote.
It is not accepting or agreeing with an opinion of others to state that opinion even in its most defensible form. It is clear that I made the point subsequently that both: 1) the conditions have materially changed since 1978 such that the policy is much worse and much more burdensome than when it was implemented; and, 2) the primary beneficiaries (blacks) did not behave as predicted when the policy was implemented, making it a failure on its own terms.
My son told me this story and we both laughed. The Saudi’s apparently offered Tiger $ 3/4 Billion to join LIV. He said no. So they bought his current owner, the PGA.
Life’s tough as a slave.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Granted, Saudi's have infinite amount of money. But why would they offer '3/4 Billion' to a has been, however legendary he may be. (Sorry if you meant $750 million, that is good token money to have a marquee name). And what sort of idiot walks away from any sort of deal that offers '3/4 Billion'? (Sorry again if it is $750 million, that may be too small for Tiger to accept, if the cost is besmirching his reputation, real or imagined).Replies: @Bill Jones, @AceDeuce, @Art Deco
She should have been impeached for that decision. “I know it’s unlawful but I don’t like the social effect that striking it down might cause” should have been grounds for removal.
Until antibiotics and birth control, females either died more often young due to childbearing or were burdened with raising their children. Since the 60s and prior, no longer.
Skill and competence levels are widely distributed in females and most of the proclaimed discrimination against them is based on facts, not prejudice. Or their choices, as the weaker and more emotion prone sex, to avoid many occupations which require more physical strength or emotional toughness.
Men are from Mars, women from Venus.
Women promoted above their personal level of emotional stability and resilience are prone to backstabbing and minor complaints over "hurt feelings" and inability to handle interpersonal stress. Sure male sexual aggressiveness is annoying but biology is destiny. Hard wired, and capable of being controlled in public and social settings by old fashioned manners and etiquette. Female singers and performers cash in on this while often hypocritically griping about sexism.
For every Harry Styles there are dozens of Brittney Spears.
Also, in general women are less analytical and more emotion oriented. Probably based upon cultural genetics.
Few women want dangerous occupations or physicial work or those which require analytics and emotional hardiness. Some do but not many. I don't see any female trash collectors.
It is no surprise that Social Media censors are mainly females.
There are sound natural reasons why few males are suited for professional child care or teaching younger children. Raising children in families is more important than careerism.
While I generally oppose government subsidies, a European style "child allowance" for stay-at-home mothers up to a certain age is an idea worth exploring.
Most of the job related discrimination over pay can be justified by productivity differences. And envy is a common female character flaw, easily now blamed on discrimination.Replies: @Bill Jones, @Alden
As you know Women have always borne the greatest burdens in society.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” — Hillary Clinton gave, in 1998, at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador
==
National Review had every reason to remove Derbyshire from the masthead in 2006, when he placed a piece in the New English Review that amounted to a lunatic attack on a book written by one of the magazine's staff editors. For reasons obscure, nothing was done. Six years later, Derbyshire published an article in Taki's satirizing 'the talk' black parents supposedly give to their children. The article said the quiet part out loud. It made several points: 'the talk' is humbug as blacks are very seldom in danger of violent assaults from whites; navigating urban life requires you understand the sort of situations to avoid, and among them are venues and events where high concentrations of blacks gather (particularly suddenly high concentrations); don't live in municipalities run by black politicians; and social status competition among bourgeois whites involves cultivating black friends. The first point is true, the last point was stated in a mildly supercilious way, and the second and third points might have benefited from some qualifications. Lowry let it slide when Derbyshire made a vitriolic attack on a large segment of the magazine's actual readers, then unloads Derbyshire when he says something mildly offensive to people who despise NR's readers stem-to-stern.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
What was the 2006 piece? I read NR for years and must have missed it.
Life's tough as a slave.Replies: @epebble
The Saudi’s apparently offered Tiger $ 3/4 Billion to join LIV. He said no.
Doesn’t pass the smell test. Granted, Saudi’s have infinite amount of money. But why would they offer ‘3/4 Billion’ to a has been, however legendary he may be. (Sorry if you meant $750 million, that is good token money to have a marquee name). And what sort of idiot walks away from any sort of deal that offers ‘3/4 Billion’? (Sorry again if it is $750 million, that may be too small for Tiger to accept, if the cost is besmirching his reputation, real or imagined).
I knew it would be misread the second the edit window closed.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
And speaking of laws and races any guesses as to which races are law-breaking here?
http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2023/06/several-youths-in-texas-beat-up-7.html
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” — Hillary Clinton gave, in 1998, at a conference on domestic violence in El SalvadorReplies: @epebble
Producing people can also be a burden, sometimes.
Reagan was warned that Sandy was a RINO squish, but he just had to have a woman, doncha know.
Speaks to the congenial nature of Reagan, who thought things would work out even if he compromised his principles.
Steve,
Please comment on the new tactic of Ibram Kendi. His new justification for anti-racism is that either one considers blacks genetically inferior and thus proves oneself a racist or one agrees that black underachievement is due to systemic racism. Kendi is openly baiting conservatives to claim that blacks are inferior to whites.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ibram-x-kendi-when-we-assess-structural-racism-we-are-talking-about-groups-not-individuals-181201477562
He would probably make a conscientious manager for the janitorial staff.
As for his argument:
1) Pretty much EVERYONE is genetically inferior to others in ways that real people actually care about. It's the human condition.
2) All sorts of environmental conditions exist that might cause some groups to perform better or worse than others in certain respects. But it is OBVIOUS that not all environmental conditions are created by malevolent humans.
3) Some environmental conditions ARE created by malevolent humans. But the contemporary reality is that today almost NOBODY is actively working to suppress blacks because they hate blacks or think they are inferior. (People of that ilk just bitch and moan online.) But some wealthy and powerful people do work to ensure that blacks remain a reliable source of votes and bitchery. They aren't actually big R R-words though... they probably hang out with "cool" black people. They are pretty much just evil.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Granted, Saudi's have infinite amount of money. But why would they offer '3/4 Billion' to a has been, however legendary he may be. (Sorry if you meant $750 million, that is good token money to have a marquee name). And what sort of idiot walks away from any sort of deal that offers '3/4 Billion'? (Sorry again if it is $750 million, that may be too small for Tiger to accept, if the cost is besmirching his reputation, real or imagined).Replies: @Bill Jones, @AceDeuce, @Art Deco
it was $750 mm.
I knew it would be misread the second the edit window closed.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Granted, Saudi's have infinite amount of money. But why would they offer '3/4 Billion' to a has been, however legendary he may be. (Sorry if you meant $750 million, that is good token money to have a marquee name). And what sort of idiot walks away from any sort of deal that offers '3/4 Billion'? (Sorry again if it is $750 million, that may be too small for Tiger to accept, if the cost is besmirching his reputation, real or imagined).Replies: @Bill Jones, @AceDeuce, @Art Deco
He did that himself, a long time ago.
Please comment on the new tactic of Ibram Kendi. His new justification for anti-racism is that either one considers blacks genetically inferior and thus proves oneself a racist or one agrees that black underachievement is due to systemic racism. Kendi is openly baiting conservatives to claim that blacks are inferior to whites.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ibram-x-kendi-when-we-assess-structural-racism-we-are-talking-about-groups-not-individuals-181201477562Replies: @AceDeuce, @Anonymous, @bomag, @Art Deco
They are.
“Let justice be done though the heavens fall. But let them fall twenty five years from now…”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
Update on that Alabama case. The redrawn congressional districts were struck down. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the three liberals in a 5-4 majority.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-alabama-congressional-map-voting-rights-dispute-rcna64476
I knew it would be misread the second the edit window closed.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
I don’t get either of you guys. $ 3/4 Billion IS $750 million. What am I missing here?
Also, Bill the use of the word “slave” is problematic these days. Please try to be more polite. You could say that Tiger Woods may become an “enslaved golfer”. That’s much less offensive, mmmkaaayy?
Problem. Whites are main instigators of this, dividing whites between the Good Whites who are into fashionable ideas and the Bad Whites, the unrepentant deplorables. Jews shaped this narrative, and many whites bought it, even conservatives who draw the line between us 'good conservatives' and those 'evil' people like race realists and the like. Didn't National Review purge Derbyshire?
but to articulate that civil rights are inclusive. No race is excluded.
'Inclusive' has multiple meanings. Conservative might like it to mean all are included in an open competition, but given the HBD factors, even those who are included are effectively excluded. How many Mexicans in the L.A. Lakers team? They are included in the competition but can't compete with blacks, even though LA is heavily brown, far more than black.
So, 'inclusion' has come to mean the need for quotas to include those who can't win in the competition. Now, if this was admitted openly, it wouldn't be so bad. Blacks are lower in IQ and black culture isn't conducive to learning. So, the only way to have more blacks in higher positions is via quotas. Admitting that would at least be honest. But the failures of blacks is attributed to 'racism', which in this day and age, should be bogus to all. It's so bogus that they came up with 'systemic racism', i.e. even if society rid itself of 'racist' policies, the problem is so deeply ingrained due to history that black are still suffering from various form of discrimination that whites aren't even consciously aware of. It's dumb but presented in pseudo-intellectual terms that hoodwink a lot of people.
Therefore, mandatory training classes preaching the antiwhite doctrines of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and/or Critical Race Theory represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment for white employees.
Correlation isn't causation but this DEI gained in steam just when Jewish Power kept going through the roof. And it went totally psycho with the rise of MAGA. Could it be DEI is a browbeating of whites to rob them of pride and agency, thereby more compliant to the identity and agenda of another group, esp the Jews on top.
Take NYT. It features a lot of blackity yakking at whites, but who are the real bigshots at NYT? Probably not the type who go around saying, "me dumb polack".
Also, if whites aren't included for protection, how come Jews get more protection than even blacks and others even though they count as white and are the richest people in the US?
Statements of support for DIE/CRT by holders of powerful positions in institutions are to be taken as prima facie evidence of intention to discriminate illegally against whites and/or Asians.
Even though the suit was brought forth by Asians, most Asians are Democratic and in fact support AA for blacks at the expense of Asians. They got the submissive gene, always eager for approval b the prevailing norms. This is even truer among the Asian elites who only imitate and do as told.
The suit was brought forth by those rejected by the colleges of their choice. Had they been admitted, they would have joined with wokeness and made noises about 'diversity'.
Also, these Asians don't care about whites and haven't the guts, like Ron Unz, the mention the Jewish factor behind this.
At US corporations, Asians are among the most vocal supporters and commissars of wokeness, along with the Good Whites. This talk of Asian-White unity in being unjustly treated is a total fantasy. Asians go with the strong horse and they join with blacks and Diversity to dump on whites. There are outliers but few and far between in elite circles.
In law, the word “equity” does not mean equality of outcome. “Equity” as recently redefined is no part of the Constitution.
Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Constitution in true practice wouldn't allow the state suppression of BDS. The only time the Constitution matters is when the rich and powerful invoke it get what they want. When Jews needed free speech, they got it. Now, they don't want free speech, and it's been suppressed all over, even via state-industry collusion.
Historically, supreme court just pulled things out of its ass, like same-sex marriage. It's a garbage institution.
Also, CA has shown that even if AA is overturned, there are so many 'holistics' means to have AA by other means, and people just don't have the time and money to sue the institutions over this.
Affirmative action discrimination against whites and Asians cannot be justified on the grounds that they are the “majority.”
South Africa and Malaysia where something like AA is for the majority. In the US too when a proto-AA was used for white Christians in favor of minority Jews who were entering the Ivies in alarming numbers through much of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if AA was usually used to favor the majority, like Russians over Jews in the Soviet Union via its own form of AA.
The United States legal system is not in the business of enforcing a “racial reckoning.” We treat individuals as individuals.
LOL. Tell that to the Palestinian Americans who must sign loyalty pledges to Israel(a nation that oppresses their ethnic kin) to work in certain areas in many states.
I don't recall reading a Taki article about the unfair treatment of Palestinian-American in violation of the Constitution.
Justice Lewis Powell’s decision in the 1978 Bakke case in which he asserted that affirmative action in college admissions is needed to promote diversity of opinion and expression on campus seemed reasonable at the time, but it has since obviously proved to be completely wrong empirically. Instead, quotas lead to students with chips on their shoulder about their intellectual deficiencies boosting cancel culture on campus to assuage their self-esteem.
This is only half-true. The reason for the rise of wokeness in institutions owes less to AA than the radical or extreme personalities of certain groups. After all, Jews were not the beneficiaries of AA, and if anything, quotas were historically used against them. Yet, they led the way in radicalizing the campus. Homos were also admitted to college on the basis of merit, and whatever one thinks of stuff like gender studies, most homos have historically not been AA cases(unless black). Yet, they too played a big role in pushing the politics of resentment. Those are two high-achieving groups.
The only AA case that pushed radicalization are blacks but many of their theories are vulgarized forms of Jewish critical theories. And the woke whites. These are not AA cases and many art smart, but they are crazy.
The rise of censoriousness and purity spirals mainly came from high achieving groups who didn't rely on AA. Charles Murray was nearly lynched and scalped by children of rich white families.
The problem of Academic Prohibition owes to strong personalities beating weaker personalities. Over time, both liberals(real ones) and conservatives lost out because they're more tolerant or middle-of-the-road, and more committed to fairness principles. In contrast, the radical Jews, woke whites, fanatical types of all kind won't take no for an answer, aka by any means necessary.
There is also the factor of money. A lot of donations come from Jews, and Jews are not above using their influence to shape academic discourse, getting certain voices fired or banned, like Salaita the Palestinian from the Univ of Illinois. And Norman Finkelstein robbed of tenure at DePaul.
Jews howl about PC only when they come under pressure but aren't averse to censorship to shut down speech they don't like. Like Bari Weiss who tried to suppress Arab-American professors but then later whined about how her speech was being ignored. Of course, she never defended the rights of true dissidents like Kevin MacDonald.
What to do about AA? Limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of Slave Ancestry and no one else. Also, time to acknowledge blacks need AA not due to 'systemic racism' but lower IQ which is indisputable. And their culture sucks.Replies: @Art Deco, @Alden
What a wonderful comment. It’s a wonderful summation of my thinking and writing about affirmative action. Asians are as anti White as blacks and Jews. Asians always supported affirmative action when it came to referendums such as California’s Proposition 209.
Why should Whites fund and pay attorneys to sue Harvard or any university or employer for racial discrimination against Asians?
Whites deserve the genocide planned for us. We’re more submissive than Asians and Hispanic peons.
And this Harvard obsession of middle class White men. And still blathering about Ivy League SAT scores. Every Ivy League university no longer uses SAT scored. Read their admissions websites. Most colleges clearly SAT There is no need to submit SAT scores. If submitted the SAT score will not be considered as a criteria for admission.
The concern about discrimination against Asians but total unconcern about discrimination against Whites is one of the reasons I don’t believe any Men of UNZ have children. If you guys did, you wouldn’t be pontificating about Asian college admissions. You’d be worried about your own sons and grandsons.
Please comment on the new tactic of Ibram Kendi. His new justification for anti-racism is that either one considers blacks genetically inferior and thus proves oneself a racist or one agrees that black underachievement is due to systemic racism. Kendi is openly baiting conservatives to claim that blacks are inferior to whites.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ibram-x-kendi-when-we-assess-structural-racism-we-are-talking-about-groups-not-individuals-181201477562Replies: @AceDeuce, @Anonymous, @bomag, @Art Deco
Ibram Kendi is not a total washout.
He would probably make a conscientious manager for the janitorial staff.
As for his argument:
1) Pretty much EVERYONE is genetically inferior to others in ways that real people actually care about. It’s the human condition.
2) All sorts of environmental conditions exist that might cause some groups to perform better or worse than others in certain respects. But it is OBVIOUS that not all environmental conditions are created by malevolent humans.
3) Some environmental conditions ARE created by malevolent humans. But the contemporary reality is that today almost NOBODY is actively working to suppress blacks because they hate blacks or think they are inferior. (People of that ilk just bitch and moan online.) But some wealthy and powerful people do work to ensure that blacks remain a reliable source of votes and bitchery. They aren’t actually big R R-words though… they probably hang out with “cool” black people. They are pretty much just evil.
The only real solution is a compromise. The best way to do this is to re-establish freedom of association for the private sector - if they want DEI/CRT, let them have it. But that means no public funding, no tax breaks, no non-profit status. All public institutions, and any organization receiving taxpayer money, must be strictly meritocratic and race cannot be considered. At least then there will be a sorting out and a multitude of options. It also gives some private organizations the strategic window to separate themselves from the pack. Let your competitors stay woke and make a dash for meritocracy and achievement! There will be some CEOs and College Presidents who will make that choice, then we'll see who rises and falls in market share and the rankings.Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Alden
Problem for any college is that if the college receives any federal state county or city money, the college must practice affirmative action. Government money includes all student loans. Plus most colleges receive government grants from various agencies. Not accepting student loans and grants is impossible. Because college tuition and living expenses are far beyond the ability of most parents and students to pay.
Consider a wealthy couple that earn about 225K a year. Federal and state taxes property taxes mortgage payments car utility expenses. All those unavoidable expenses just don’t leave 50K a year to send someone to college.
Any organization or entity that has any license or permit from any government agency is required by law to practice affirmative action. Private club serves food needs a local restaurant permit. Even the building permits and sewer hook ups. A government permit of any kind requires affirmative action. Plus there’s the 50 or more employees requires affirmative action. It’s impossible to run a college without local permits and licenses. And government insured student loans and or grants to pay the tuition.
Plus the Republicans and conservatives love affirmative action as much as do the democrats. Because non White affirmative action immigrants lower wages.
My interlocutor read 3/4 not as you did, and I intended as three quarters, but as 3 to 4.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23403021/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-ketanji-brown-jackson-colorblind-originalismHere is her reasoning.Hmm... Sounds like we need to have a discussion about "equality before the law" (the only form of equality I see covered in that quote) and "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5034217/justice-jackson-argues-14th-amendment-intended-race-neutral-race-blind
Unfortunately no transcript (thanks C-Span). One interesting wrinkle is her focus on the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. I thought for liberals the intent of the framers of the Constitution was not a valid argument.
There she used the phrase "brought equal with everyone else in society." (really sounds like we need to have the conversation I mentioned above)
She quotes "citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens" and "unequal treatment." More of the same...
The sad thing is I doubt the other justices will be willing to point out how weak her reasoning is. And though Edmund LaCour (Alabama Solicitor General) seems to be making good points in response I worry the power differential will make that irrelevant.
I would be interested in hearing a lawyer's take on that video (6 minutes).Replies: @res, @Hypnotoad666, @Achmed E. Newman, @res, @Alden
Well, the Supreme Court overthrew the Roe vs Wade ruling. And the blackest states quickly made abortion illegal.
So conservatives achieved their greatest triumph. And don’t care if affirmative action discrimination against Whites gets worse. And the entire federal and state criminal codes are overturned. And all county and state prosecutor offices are eliminated. And all police and sheriff departments eliminated.
Abortion is now illegal in the blackest states. Be happy, conservatives you won . More black thugs are in the way. Such a conservative triumph.
I wonder what the next great conservative crusade will be? Laws to make tattoos and unnatural hair colors illegal?
The problem is no one tells the truth. Life begins at conception. An embryo is not yet a fetus, but it is living.
On the flip side, has anyone ever attended a funeral for someone’s miscarriage at 6 to 8 weeks? I hate to be crass, but that ‘baby” goes down the toilet or the drain. Why don’t pro-life advocates advocate for the frozen embryos left behind when in vitro mothers are done popping out their in vitro babies? Those little souls are in suspended animation for eternity or they are destroyed, but no one seems to care about those little guys, do they?
I truly believe that most of the men of UNZ are between 90 and 95. I truly believe the men of UNZ got their jobs between 1950 and 1955. 22 to 16 years before President Kennedy issued the first affirmative action executive order 10925 mandating affirmative action for negroes in all federal employment and federal contracts.
I truly believe the men of UNZ have not laid eyes on any federal state county or city government employee since 1960.
My thing is anti affirmative action. Because it affects every White person. Most Whites live a lifetime without being a victim of black criminals. But affirmative action affects every aspect of our lives.
Until antibiotics and birth control, females either died more often young due to childbearing or were burdened with raising their children. Since the 60s and prior, no longer.
Skill and competence levels are widely distributed in females and most of the proclaimed discrimination against them is based on facts, not prejudice. Or their choices, as the weaker and more emotion prone sex, to avoid many occupations which require more physical strength or emotional toughness.
Men are from Mars, women from Venus.
Women promoted above their personal level of emotional stability and resilience are prone to backstabbing and minor complaints over "hurt feelings" and inability to handle interpersonal stress. Sure male sexual aggressiveness is annoying but biology is destiny. Hard wired, and capable of being controlled in public and social settings by old fashioned manners and etiquette. Female singers and performers cash in on this while often hypocritically griping about sexism.
For every Harry Styles there are dozens of Brittney Spears.
Also, in general women are less analytical and more emotion oriented. Probably based upon cultural genetics.
Few women want dangerous occupations or physicial work or those which require analytics and emotional hardiness. Some do but not many. I don't see any female trash collectors.
It is no surprise that Social Media censors are mainly females.
There are sound natural reasons why few males are suited for professional child care or teaching younger children. Raising children in families is more important than careerism.
While I generally oppose government subsidies, a European style "child allowance" for stay-at-home mothers up to a certain age is an idea worth exploring.
Most of the job related discrimination over pay can be justified by productivity differences. And envy is a common female character flaw, easily now blamed on discrimination.Replies: @Bill Jones, @Alden
It’s 2023, not 1963. Women haven’t been discriminated against since Griggs vs Duke Power 1971. It’s White men who are discriminated against and have been for the last 52 years.
Why regurgitate the arguments for sensible occupational requirements that were struck down 52 years ago?
Teeny tiny little 5 ft 90 pound Asian women cops and even firefighters. That’s the law since 1971.
It’s 2023 It’s 2023. It’s 2023
Thank you Nicholas Stix. Great comment as always.
OK, generous interpretation there, as 3/4 is “three quarters” while 3-4 is, yes, “three to four”. It was plain enough to me. Thanks.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2022/01/01/thought-for-the-day-550/Replies: @Art Deco, @Ennui
Quick look up of Rauh, and his biographical details are unsurprising.
Interesting little tidbit that makes one lip curl in disgust, that defender of liberty and hero to normiecons, Ronald Reagan, put Rauh’s son on a judicial nomination committee, unsurprising and pathetic.
Summary: Without overwhelming evidence of injury, there is no rationale for overturning a long-standing Supreme court decision. 'Equal protection' in the abstract doesn't mean much. I live in my house and my dog lives in the doghouse. Both of us are protected equally from the elements. Have we satisfied 'Equal protection' clause? It depends on who does the comparison.Replies: @bomag
My, how things have changed. I’ve been told that we are more segregated today than at the time of Brown; no talk of desegregation today; if anything, the desire is for more segregation: keep away from Karens; put right-wingers in jail, cancel them, shun them, paint them chartreuse and social distance.
Also highlights the change in tactics, from wanting equal access that would give equal outcomes, to demanding outsized outcomes to compensate for past inequality.
Agree.
Speaks to the congenial nature of Reagan, who thought things would work out even if he compromised his principles.
Large companies now dictate POC staffing to their vendors. Competition for barely competent blacks is high all over the private sector. If you’re a contractor with state/muni work, you set up a minority-subsidiary so you can qualify for bids.
Please comment on the new tactic of Ibram Kendi. His new justification for anti-racism is that either one considers blacks genetically inferior and thus proves oneself a racist or one agrees that black underachievement is due to systemic racism. Kendi is openly baiting conservatives to claim that blacks are inferior to whites.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ibram-x-kendi-when-we-assess-structural-racism-we-are-talking-about-groups-not-individuals-181201477562Replies: @AceDeuce, @Anonymous, @bomag, @Art Deco
Time to explain to him that “all men are created equal” is not a categorical statement.
Please comment on the new tactic of Ibram Kendi. His new justification for anti-racism is that either one considers blacks genetically inferior and thus proves oneself a racist or one agrees that black underachievement is due to systemic racism. Kendi is openly baiting conservatives to claim that blacks are inferior to whites.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ibram-x-kendi-when-we-assess-structural-racism-we-are-talking-about-groups-not-individuals-181201477562Replies: @AceDeuce, @Anonymous, @bomag, @Art Deco
Kendi’s not baiting anyone who has the sense to ignore him. He is unserious.
Kendi was doing the baiting while on MSNBC. He is hard to ignore when he is in the media all of the time. Remember, Kendi starts off with the same data that Steve Sailer starts off with including the homicide numbers, family formation, school performance, etc. Kendi blames it on systemic racism that can only be fixed with a race-conscious government focusing on anti-racism. The conservative response has to be muted because who is going to come out in the media or in politics to say that blacks are genetically inferior and the gaps in achievement are just something that we all have to live with?
https://qr.ae/pyFPy4
You can ignore MSDNC. Hardly anyone watches it and most of them are unreachable. ‘Systemic racism’ is sociological phlogiston, so arguments which assume its existence do not merit much of a response.
MSNBC's tiny audience is the measure of true believers out there--they are few. They appear greater because they hold the Megaphone--at least, the people manipulating them hold it.So Kendi preaching to them is meaningless and harmless.The only shame is more don't see Kendi stating the convention in all its stupidity with that stupid default expression of his.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Granted, Saudi's have infinite amount of money. But why would they offer '3/4 Billion' to a has been, however legendary he may be. (Sorry if you meant $750 million, that is good token money to have a marquee name). And what sort of idiot walks away from any sort of deal that offers '3/4 Billion'? (Sorry again if it is $750 million, that may be too small for Tiger to accept, if the cost is besmirching his reputation, real or imagined).Replies: @Bill Jones, @AceDeuce, @Art Deco
They don’t have an infinite amount of money.
Yes. But Kendi’s great. He didn’t introduce a new idea, that all disparity is the measure of white racism, just stated plainly what has been the default convention for decades and thus the basis of policy and law.
MSNBC’s tiny audience is the measure of true believers out there–they are few. They appear greater because they hold the Megaphone–at least, the people manipulating them hold it.So Kendi preaching to them is meaningless and harmless.
The only shame is more don’t see Kendi stating the convention in all its stupidity with that stupid default expression of his.
Just look at the maps. Who can fix this?
https://qr.ae/pyFPy4
So conservatives achieved their greatest triumph. And don’t care if affirmative action discrimination against Whites gets worse. And the entire federal and state criminal codes are overturned. And all county and state prosecutor offices are eliminated. And all police and sheriff departments eliminated.
Abortion is now illegal in the blackest states. Be happy, conservatives you won . More black thugs are in the way. Such a conservative triumph.
I wonder what the next great conservative crusade will be? Laws to make tattoos and unnatural hair colors illegal?Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
That’s so true. Abortion is the wrong hill for conservatives to die on. Society is not improved by unwanted children of single mothers.
The problem is no one tells the truth. Life begins at conception. An embryo is not yet a fetus, but it is living.
On the flip side, has anyone ever attended a funeral for someone’s miscarriage at 6 to 8 weeks? I hate to be crass, but that ‘baby” goes down the toilet or the drain. Why don’t pro-life advocates advocate for the frozen embryos left behind when in vitro mothers are done popping out their in vitro babies? Those little souls are in suspended animation for eternity or they are destroyed, but no one seems to care about those little guys, do they?