Affirmative Action is an open-ended solution to a problem that has already been
fixed. The blatant discrimination that existed fifty or a hundred years ago
is all but completely gone, but this "solution" is here to stay. Now the tables are turned, and a
system of racial quotas and (constantly expanding) reverse discrimination appears to
be in place permanently.
When you look at a list
of federal government agencies, departments, bureaus, divisions and directorates,
one thing you'll notice right away is the number of offices and agencies
dedicated to career advancement for certain people based on their gender or
ethnicity. Every facet of the government seems to include an office for the
promotion of workplace diversity, equal employment opportunity, minority resources,
or disadvantaged business utilization. These are all code words for
discrimination against able-bodied white males. In some cases
a single office is in charge of equal employment opportunity and workplace
diversity. But it is logically impossible to implement diversity without
discrimination.
Workplace diversity adds nothing to productivity. The Japanese economy is thriving, yet Japan has
the least diverse work force in the world. God originated workplace diversity at the Tower of
Babel — as punishment! — and stopped the entire project overnight.
If I were the only person who disagreed with the racial discrimination now known as "affirmative action",
this page would be pointless. And if every one of the articles listed on this page had been written
by a caucasian, you could easily dismiss it as a the ranting of bigots. But in fact many
of these authors are themselves black and/or female, or represent some other minority. Some
have PhD's, and they all write very convincingly.
What Does Affirmative Action Affirm? My
objections to correcting the past fall into two categories: First, the people receiving compensation
are not the victims. Second, the people paying compensation are not the perpetrators.
Have any American blacks benefited
from affirmative action? Note that the uptick in employment numbers usually comes from
government payrolls. Public officials can pad these any way they want to, and historically
have. … Still, I thought that the educational establishment could run a McDonald's-style "billions
served" claim on its part of AA law. After all, that which the government runs and funds it can
cook and season.
Has Affirmative Action
run its course? The very idea of continuing a policy which drives home the message that blacks
can't make it in this country without racial quotas and preferences makes a mockery of, not only Obama's
political success, but of every black person's efforts to reach personal goals without the stigma of having
done so only because the government gave them an unfair advantage. … If blacks are ever to be viewed as
equals, the perception of them as needy must change.
My
Preferences. Over the past ten years, no American president, Congress, legislature, or governor has
acted to eliminate preferences — in other words, to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which commands
the government to treat us all "without regard to race, color, national origin or sex." In addition, the
United States Supreme Court has handed down conflicting opinions about the matter. In response, I have led
the national effort to enforce the act through ballot initiatives in states that allow them.
Affirmative
action just moves different groups to the back of the bus. The conversation has intensified
over this November's Michigan Civil Rights Initiative to ban affirmative action preferences in college
admissions and government hiring in our state. But anyone seeking a logical reason to oppose this
fair-minded proposal is encountering more difficulty in doing so.
Senator Obama,
You're No King. In the fullness of time, the American people have done precisely what Dr. King
urged us to do: We have worked diligently to create a nation in which skin color is not a barrier to
opportunity. … And, yet, despite our progress, there is one issue that stands in the way of our completely
fulfilling King's dream; and that is race-based affirmative-action preferences.
Cultural affirmative action: What do
you think Bill Clinton was referring to when he said that he wanted his cabinet to "look like America,"
meritocracy or quota orthodoxy? Yet Clinton isn't alone; he merely gave voice to common practice.
Would Condoleezza Rice have been appointed Secretary of State and Joycelyn Elders Surgeon General if they
weren't black women? Would Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor have ascended to the Supreme
Court and Janet Reno been Attorney General if they weren't female?
Preferences Forever? We've come a
long way since 1964, when the late civil rights hero Hubert Humphrey stood on the Senate floor and told his
colleagues that if the civil rights bill contained "any language which provides that an employer will have to
hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start
eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there." Four decades later, supporters of racial
preferences imposed by government agencies are blocking legal efforts to establish the color-blind society that
Martin Luther King envisioned.
Affirmative
action dishonesty. Bill is a contrarian by nature, and he has never been able to stomach the
combination of moral sanctimoniousness and rampant dishonesty that often characterizes the most aggressive
supporters of affirmative action, especially in the academy. He spoke with open contempt about several
of his colleagues who had been hired for affirmative action purposes, and with even more contempt for his
white colleagues who had made these hiring decisions.
Deconstructing Obama:
Deconstructionists have attempted to remake society around a new set of power relations. In their
philosophical re-do, they imperiously take the advantage away from white males and hand it over, lock, stock
and barrel to all non-white males and females of all varieties. And presto-change-o the world is still
unfair, but it is unfair in a different direction. A more "fair" form of unfairness, or so say the
deconstructionists.
'Help' That Harms:
The arguments about the unintended consequences of affirmative action aren't new. What is new is a
growing body of empirical evidence to back up the claim that affirmative action in higher education harms not
only whites and Asians but also blacks and Hispanics. But this body of evidence may never see
light — which is why the report is so important.
The End
of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action in theory bears no resemblance to affirmative action
in reality. … Of course, it should come as no surprise that people engage in racial discrimination in hiring
when they are specifically asked to do so by human resources. But what is surprising about affirmative
action is the extent to which it encourages discrimination along the lines of other variables not classified
as "allowable" under official policies.
Affirmative action may
be on ballots. A campaign is underway to ban affirmative action in five states already embroiled
in debates over illegal immigration. Efforts are proceeding in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and
Oklahoma to put initiatives on November ballots that would end programs to increase minority and female
participation in government and education. The push is led by Ward Connerly, a California management
consultant who successfully ran similar campaigns in California, Washington and Michigan.
Democratic
Chickens Coming Home to Roost. Affirmative action is unconstitutional, in violating the
14th Amendment. It is illegal, in that it violates the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. And it is a
moral outrage. But for most blacks, as for their white patrons, support for affirmative action is a
political and moral litmus test. Any white who fails that test is for them a "racist" and irredeemably
evil.
The
First Affirmative Action Candidate. There is little difference between the rhetoric of Obama and
the white candidates. They all speak of hope and change. Why should Obama's words be more believable,
legitimate or acceptable? The answer is white guilt. American institutions tainted with white guilt
are ready to dispense with justice for what they perceive as the higher goal of attaining moral legitimacy.
The charge of racism in contemporary America is probably the most intimidating, if not the most ruinous, to white
people's careers.
McCain Backs Ban on
Affirmative Action. Presidential challenger John McCain said Sunday [7/27/2008] that he supports
a proposed ballot initiative in his home state that would prohibit affirmative action policies from state and
local governments. A decade ago, he called a similar effort "divisive."
Arizona University is Forced to Treat White
Professors Equally. A federal judge in Phoenix this month said that Northern Arizona University
owes $1.4 million to a group of professors who have been pursuing justice through the courts since
1995. … The lawsuit and its outcome are yet another striking illustration of the perils of affirmative
action, with its often contorted logic of redress and blame and its tendency to commit exactly the sort of
discrimination that it was designed to prevent.
Group seeks affirmative action
vote. A civil rights group in Michigan will ask voters through a ballot initiative this
November to decide whether to abolish affirmative action for college admissions, government hiring and
contracting. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) has been trying for three years to pose
the question to voters, all while fending off lawsuits and other civil rights groups, Gov. Jennifer M.
Granholm, a Democrat, and some prominent state lawmakers who oppose it.
Affirmative Blackmail: According
to its mission statement, a primary goal of the American Bar Association is to "promote respect for the
law." In the interest of mandating racial preferences in admissions, however, the ABA has just
ordered law schools to do the opposite — in fact, to violate the law — and is
resorting to blackmail to achieve its end.
Students
disrupt election vote. Hundreds storm meeting hurling insults at panel trying to certify
affirmative action ban for 2006.
[If Affirmative Action is put to a vote it will fail. This incident shows that the
beneficiaries of Affirmative Action will resort to violence to perpetuate it.]
Police investigate
alleged threat to affirmative action foe. An official with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,
which is pushing for an end to race-based affirmative action policies, has accused a member of an opposition
group of threatening her with a knife.
Help wanted: Must not be
white, male. Able-bodied white men seeking a career in Canada's Department of Public Works
had best wait awhile before submitting their resumes — the deputy minister of the federal
agency has instructed managers to temporarily hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and
the disabled.
Racial profiling
for dollar$: The Bush administration supports racial profiling — as long
as it's lining the pockets of the right people. Bean-counting government bureaucrats are
free to take race, ethnicity and gender into account when doling out public funds to
non-white-male contractors.
The
darker side of quotas. When racial preferences are lifted, whites don't
gain much, but Asian admissions jump through the roof. At the University of
Texas-Austin, when preferences were removed, Asian freshmen jumped to 18 percent
in a state where Asians comprise only 3 percent of the population. … The
diversity "racket" discriminates against some minorities for the benefit of other minorities.
Questions for Senator
Schumer. During debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey, the Minnesota
Democrat who was one of the principal sponsors of the legislation, denounced the "wholesale
distortions" and "nightmarish propaganda" that the law would permit preferential treatment
of an individual or group because of race or a racial "imbalance" in employment.
Destroying
effective policing: Police departments must use race and sex preferences in
hiring as a result of federal court consent decrees and political pressures. To meet
these demands, many police departments have lowered, and in some cases eliminated, established
standards for personal character and intellectual and physical capacity.
How Racial P.C.
Corrupted the LAPD: The LAPD was once known as "the world's greatest police
department," due largely to its stringent character screening. Back in the era of
Sergeant Joe Friday, LAPD candidates were checked out as thoroughly as homicide suspects. … All
that is now history. In a bid to appease racial activists and meet federal decrees,
strict screening and testing measures were dismantled. New black and
Hispanic officer candidates were hustled into the ranks at any cost.
The road to bad laws is paved with good
intentions. The more likely that an assault will be successful, the more
likely criminals will be to make it. The major factor determining success is the
relative strengths and sizes of the criminal and officer. In particular, when
officer strength and size requirements are reduced because of affirmative action, each
one-percent increase in the number of female officers increases the number of assaults
on police by 15 to 19 percent. The Atlanta-courthouse shooting simply arose
from such a case.
Affirmative Action Has Mixed Results for
Cops. Because of large differences in strength and size between men and
women, different standards are applied to ensure that there are more female officers. In
the Nichols case, the difference was stark: the suspect was 33 years old and 6 feet
tall; the female sheriff's deputy guarding him was 51 years old and 5-foot-2.
The Decline of
Affirmative Action. By tying it to the then controversial women's movement,
[Democrat Congressman Howard W.] Smith hoped to kill the Civil Rights Act. … Within
decades, government had imposed de facto quotas and fair practice standards for women (and
minorities) throughout the work place and academia. That had not
been [President] Kennedy's intention.
Baking
up a controversy: The enemies of campus bake sales are at it again,
inflaming one another over the dire threat of cupcakes and cookies sold at different
prices to whites, minorities, and women. The sales are political parody, of
course, poking fun at affirmative action policies and trying to get a debate
going. Campus orthodoxy holds that such policies are sacred and that any
dissent, even in the form of satirical cookie prices, is illegitimate and
deserving of suppression.
Preferences
aren't necessary. For more than three decades, supporters of affirmative action
have argued that racial preferences in higher education were absolutely vital if blacks and
other minorities were to obtain college and professional degrees. A new study, however,
debunks the myth that those preferences are necessary … providing stunning evidence that
affirmative action may actually hurt the chances of blacks to obtain their law degrees.
San
Francisco affirmative action plan ruled illegal. A
Superior Court judge has ruled that a two-decade-old affirmative
action program in San Francisco violates the sweeping ban on race
and gender preferences California voters approved in 1996.
Double
Standards, Double Talk, and Multiple Troubles. Fairness in the public realm once
meant equality before the law, but many today equate it with equality of outcome. Is it
any wonder, then, that American political culture has become plagued by identity politics,
victimization claims and affirmative discrimination?
Alan Keyes On Affirmative
Action: In the 1960s, the civil rights movement sought to enforce the
principle in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Today's
civil rights groups, including the NAACP, have abandoned that principle. Today, civil
rights groups defend affirmative action by arguing that it cures past discrimination. They
do not see that no one can cure a past injustice with another injustice, and that it patronizes
American blacks because it presumes that blacks cannot succeed on their own. Affirmative
action does not advance civil rights in this country. It is merely another government
program to secure money and jobs for a few people who benefit from it.
Real Reason to
Oppose Affirmative Action: Debate over affirmative action is centered on a
person's perceptions of fairness. Those favoring it argue it is unfair to have the
same requirements for select minorities as for others. Those opposed believe it's
unfair that the more qualified candidate loses an opportunity to a less qualified member
of a preferred group.
Federal
Overhiring of Minorities: 12,310 new federal jobs were created during
FY 2001 but only 2,820 of this total were filled by white males and
other "non-minorities". That means that fewer than 23 jobs out of
every 100 new Federal jobs were filled by non-minorities. Apparently FY 2001
just wasn't a very good year for white guys to apply for a federal job!
Blacks
in the Federal Work Force: The First Place prize in the federal quota
competition goes to Court Services and Offender Services (CSOS) for employing 1,025.4% more
blacks than their affirmative action "target".
Diversity
Means Quotas. Times executive editor Howell Raines has basically admitted
that affirmative action played a major role in giving disgraced former reporter
Jayson Blair the opportunity to prosper at the paper. Blair came to the paper
on a minority internship and was promoted to national reporter, covering the beltway
sniper shootings, over the objections of a Times editor. The editor was told
Blair had to be promoted to diversify the newsroom.
How
Title IX [held] us back at the Athens Olympics: Should the gold medals be
divided equally among the participating countries? Of course not, nor should money be
allocated equally to everyone who shows up. Yet that is what Title IX regulations
impose on our schools and colleges.
Affirmative
action? No, racial preference. The affirmative action described
in President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, issued on Sept. 28, 1965, specifically
said things were to be done without regard to race. The 1964 Civil Rights Act says the
same thing.
The soft
bigotry of low expectations comes from many directions. Paul Hornung,
the Pro Football Hall of Famer, NFL Green Bay Packers' star and Notre Dame Heisman trophy
winner, stood recently before the public relations' "racial insensitivity" pit that
dragged down John Rocker, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, Al Campanis, Fuzzy Zoeller
and Sen. Trent Lott.
Affirmative Action Is Not
What It Used to Be. The term "affirmative action" has long since ceased
meaning what it meant in its beginnings soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In
1968 President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 which ordered
government agencies to take "affirmative action" (urged by President Kennedy earlier) to
encourage the full participation of minority-members in American life. Later
gender was added to affirmative action.
College
Bake Sales Spark Conflict. Campus bake sales by
conservatives who oppose affirmative action are cooking
up discord — and complaints about restrictions on free speech. Organizers
charge white students $1 for a cookie, while blacks and other
minorities pay 25 to 95 cents. Unfair? So is affirmative
action, organizers contend.
Conservative
Black Leaders React to Supremes' Affirmative Action Ruling: A strong
opponent of racial preferences is praising Justice Clarence Thomas for his strong
dissent in the Supreme Court's ruling on the University of Michigan Law School's
affirmative action plan.
Destroying
black youth: Let's examine some practical matters ignored in the pro-affirmative
action celebration of the court's decision.
What then is the
Constitution? What has been lost in the affirmative action debate is the
idea that justice must be the goal of good government.
Saving
quotas: There was some talk recently about upcoming vacancies on the Supreme
Court because some retirements were expected. However, the High Court's decision on
affirmative action suggests that there are already vacancies, even though no one has resigned.
The
Supremes and affirmative action: The Supreme Court decision upholding
affirmative action is incoherent, disingenuous, intellectually muddled and morally
confused. Yet, it is welcome.
Bush
supports racist affirmative action. President Bush commented on the
Supreme Court ruling yesterday [6/23/2003] stating, "I applaud the Supreme Court
for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity
is one of America's greatest strengths."
"Diversity"
Breeds Journalistic Corruption. The Jayson Blair/New York Times
scandal represents the impact of the insidious push for "diversity" in the
media. Blair, considered a "promising" and "talented" black reporter, was a
living example of the importance that the major media attach to "diversity" in
the newsroom over accuracy and objectivity in the journalistic product.
Jayson
Blair: A study in compassionate racism. As newspaper editors convened
emergency denial-control meetings and minority journalists circled their wagons, New
York Times executive editor Howell Raines went ahead and admitted what was obvious to
anyone without a blankie over his head: Of course it's about race.
Racial
preferences at the New York Times: Jayson Blair, the black
now-disgraced, former up-and-coming reporter of The New York Times, personifies
everything wrong with racial preferences.
Crash
landing for affirmative action? It is difficult to imagine how the morale
so necessary for national security can be maintained in a military which does not use merit
as its sole basis for performance evaluations.
Quota
"logic". Old-timers may remember a radio program about a crime-fighting
hero called The Shadow, who had "the power to cloud men's minds, so that they cannot
see him." Affirmative action has that same power today. Some of the murkiest
thinking of our times has come from those defending group preferences and quotas.
The
grand fraud: part I. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest
enough to admit that they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone
knows that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice.
The
grand fraud: part II. In the feminist movement's version of history,
women's changing economic position is explained by women's being repressed by men until
they began to be rescued in the 1960s by the women's movement, anti-discrimination
policies, and affirmative action. Hard facts tell a very different story.
The
grand fraud: part III. The end of affirmative action in the state-supported
universities of California and Texas was decried and denounced by those who said that it
would mean the end of black students' "access" to college, the "resegregation of higher
education" and other irresponsible rhetorical flourishes.
The
grand fraud: part IV. Someone once said of Lillian Hellman that every word she
uttered was a lie, including "and" and "the." Many defenders of affirmative action deserve a
Lillian Hellman award. Not only is much of what they say contradicted by readily available
facts, much of what they say publicly contradicts what they themselves say privately. Often
their very reasons for favoring affirmative action are false.
Create
affirmative action for the truly needy: Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court is
hearing a challenge to the racist admissions policy at the University of Michigan. The
university ranks applicants on a scale that awards points for SAT scores, high school grades
and the color of one's skin. A perfect SAT score is worth 12 points. Being
black earns you 20 points.
Quotas
on trial: The dishonesty that is incidental to other policies is central to
affirmative action. Most of what is said in support of this policy is either wholly
unsubstantiated or demonstrably false.
Quotas
on trial: part II. People who are for or against affirmative action are usually for or against the
theory of it. What actually happens under this policy gets remarkably little attention.
Dirty Secrets About "Affirmative Action":
"The dirty little secret about affirmative action is that it doesn't work." So concluded ABC network
reporter Bob Zelnick in his excellent book on the subject, titled "Backfire." An even dirtier
secret is that virtually no one really cares whether or not affirmative action works to advance minorities
or women.
Affirmative Action: Facts and
Myths. Why do so many prominent social critics possess so little understanding of the causes
they champion with such passion? Nothing so limits the public's ability to form reasoned opinions about
vital issues as does the endless barrage of irresponsible, baseless assertions made by
such individuals.
Affirmative
Action Hero: The Life and Death of Patrick Chavis. Seven years ago,
Chavis became the toast of the media elite and the racial preference crowd when he
was profiled lavishly by New York Times magazine writer Nicholas Lemann. Chavis,
who made the cover of the magazine, was a black physician admitted to the University
of California-Davis medical school under a special racial-preference quota.
Affirmative action, a
disservice to us all: The University of Michigan employs an admissions process that openly and
unapologetically benefits minorities. Opponents decry the policy as a violation of the spirit, if not
the letter, of the Bill of Rights (drawing specific attention to the Equal protection clause of
the 14th Amendment).
"Affirmative
action" revisited: Secretary of State Colin Powell distinguished preferences
from affirmative action in his autobiography. "Equal rights and equal opportunity… mean
just that," said Powell. "They do not mean preferential treatment. Preferences, no matter
how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the nonpreferred. And preferential
treatment demeans the achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts.
Next: Get rid of racial
boxes. President Bush has spoken. Giving 20 bonus points to public college and
university applicants just for being black, Hispanic or Native American is "divisive, unfair, and impossible
to square with the Constitution."
The
Affirmative Action Complex: Racism and sexism are serious problems in this country.
Ironically, the solution that has been devised for these ills is blatantly racist and sexist. Affirmative
action calls for decisions to be made solely on the basis of race and sex — which is the very
definition of racism and sexism.
Racism in the
newsroom: The diversity craze in the newsroom has not only hurt good, qualified white male
reporters and editors in tangible ways, it has hurt the very people it was intended to help and it has hurt
the credibility and viability of the news organizations infected with this disease.
Diversity is Not Merely Skin Deep:
The Illinois Board of Higher Education recently sought public comment on its campaign to promote faculty
"diversity," which it equates with skin color or national origin. Most of the current and proposed
"steps to increase minority faculty," however, are unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Why Affirmative Action is
Harmful: I'm not a very good "briefer," as they say in Washington, because I tend to throw
complications at politicians who want simple answers, but on this issue I can keep it simple.
10 States Ask U.S.
Supreme Court to Take Up Michigan Affirmative-Action: Ten states
have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case involving the
use of race-conscious admissions policies by the University of
Michigan Law School.
Race is Still an Issue in College Admission,
Activist Says: In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which did away with
racial preferences in admissions. The Center for Equal Opportunity says the University of California is
ignoring the law in a unseemly manner and is back to using race as a factor in admitting first-year students.
One of the Issues Tearing Our Nation's
Fabric: Affirmative Action. Hubert Humphrey, a self-described sixties liberal, defined
discrimination as "any distinction in treatment given to different individuals because of their different
race." Today's preference programs have gone far beyond that view and, as reformers have suggested,
now threaten to turn Dr. King's dream into a nightmare and his vision of a color-blind society into a
dangerously polarized illusion.
"Friends"
of blacks: During the 1940s, black students in Harlem schools had test
scores very similar to those of white working class students on the lower east side
of New York. Sometimes the Harlem scores were a little higher or a little lower, but
they were never miles behind, the way they are today in many ghetto schools. If blacks
could do better back when their opportunities were worse, why can't today's ghetto
students do better?
"Friends" of Blacks, Part 2: No group is
more in need of forgetting old political ties and making some new ones than blacks. The black vote has
been almost an automatic monopoly of the Democratic Party for years. Yet the dominant forces among the
Democrats have agendas that are directly contrary to the interests of blacks.
New Words for the Same Old Hustle: Martin
Luther King Jr. did not protest the double standards of Jim Crow so they could be replaced with the double
standards of affirmative action. Americans today are a remarkably tolerant and unbigoted
people — especially when compared with others around the world — and yet our
government and laws are obsessed as never before with race and racial categories. That obsession in
turn infects our workplaces, our schools, our media. Thirty-four years after Dr. King's death, we are
more mired in race than ever.
American History vs. Affirmative Action
Hogwash: No one wants to talk about this because it would undermine the myth that the government
and black "leaders" are responsible for the advancement of the black population. One of the consequences
of that myth is that, while most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty, the public image is that government
programs were responsible. This has left many whites wondering why blacks can't advance themselves by
their own efforts, like other minorities -- and left many blacks likewise convinced that without
government programs they would be lost. Such myths help race hustlers but hurt the race that they
claim to be leading.
Rein in Affirmative Action: [There are] 19
separate regulations that benefit "economically disadvantaged" bankers. Most people probably wouldn't
consider anyone rich enough to own a bank qualified for preference under a program ostensibly aimed at
disadvantaged persons.
Affirmative
action's latest victim: a black judge. Unfortunately, Affirmative
Action is now little more than a euphemism for the use of quotas, though they
often go under the cover of "goals" or "diversity" or some other verbal disguise.
Vanderbilt
professor who was born into poverty calls for end to affirmative action: Carol Swain grew up in
a poor black family of 12 children, a family that had to carry water up a steep hill to their rural
Virginia shack to run the washing machine or take baths. Years later, she is an award-winning political
scientist — and an author whose name and opinions probably will become more familiar in the
next few months.
Affirmative Action Can't Be Mended, by
Walter E. Williams. "Even if affirmative action was not a violation of justice and fair play, was
not a zero-sum game, was not racially polarizing, it is a poor cover-up for the real work that needs
to be done."
Imaginary
History: Picture three white fire fighters raising the American flag at Ground Zero. Then
picture a magical transformation: a statue of one white, one black and one Hispanic. The rulers of
political correctness didn't like what really happened, so they plan to portray it the way they think it
should have been.
Judge People by Their Character, Not Skin
Color: Color blindness now has been replaced with color preference in the form of affirmative
action. No amount of rationalizing can disguise the fact that affirmative action involves implicit
or explicit racial quotas, i.e., racism.
Affirmative
Action: The New Road to Serfdom. Do the claims made on behalf of affirmative action hold
up? How much substance is there to the charge that "affirmative action" is a euphemism for reverse
discrimination? Moreover, has affirmative action benefited women and minorities in the ways originally
intended, or have such policies worked to their detriment in some respects, as well as to the detriment of
our organizations? Finally, to what extent is affirmative action compatible with the principles of a
free and open society?
One
Nation, Indivisible: Affirmative action is a
direct threat to the culture of equality that defines the character of the nation.
Rein in Affirmative Action: Racial
preferences are now a well established part of employment, education, and voting rights practices. The
federal government runs 19 programs for "disadvantaged" bankers. Even adoption agencies are
required to consider race when finding homes for parent-less children.
White Male Applicant: An
Affirmative Action Exposé written & illustrated by William A. Whitaker.
Affirmative action for
Osama: Under the affirmative action program now pending before the Supreme Court in
Adarand Constructors v. Mineta, each of the 12,000 boys born in Pakistan last year who were
named "Osama" would be granted preferential treatment over American-born whites. They just have
to immigrate here. Our government discriminates against native-born Americans in favor
of Pakistanis.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
Creating a state within a state.
Native Hawaiians seek
rights to self-government. Hawaii politicians are scrambling to gather enough votes in
Congress to pass a bill that would grant Native Hawaiians a degree of self-government and possibly a
share of the land ruled by their ancestors.
An unconstitutional
act. If Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii gets his way, the Senate next week will pass
S. 147, a bill that would for the first time create a race-based system of governing in the United
States. Akaka's bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would erect a new governmental
structure to have jurisdiction over American citizens who have "one drop" of Native Hawaiian blood.
Apartheid for Native Hawaiians: Now
there's a new group that wants in on all the special rights, free benefits and racial preferences that
accompany sovereign tribal status: Native Hawaiians.
Hawaii Moves Toward Second 'Ethnic'
Government. In a move that critics call a direct threat to the U.S. Constitution, federal
legislation is moving forward in Congress to create a second, separate government in Hawaii solely controlled
by ethnic and indigenous Hawaiians.
Hawaii's Racial Separatism
Threatens America's Fundamental Principles. Among the 50 states, Hawaii is the most diverse. All ethnic
groups are minorities. Intermarriage is commonplace. All races live, work, play and pray side by side. But
despite the Aloha Spirit, institutional racism has become entrenched in Hawaii, causing huge problems. Hawaii is
rapidly building a bridge to the Nineteenth Century. Hawaii has "affirmative action" on steroids. The favorite
racial group is the 20% who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. Two state government agencies serve
"Native Hawaiians" exclusively.
'Native Hawaiian' Act a Pending Disaster, Experts
Warn. Representatives of 10 state and national organizations that advocate for property rights
and low and fair taxation are warning members of Congress and others with influence over national policy of
dire consequences if the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 becomes law.
Trouble in paradise?
I've been talking to some buddies from high school, and we're thinking of getting together and forming an Indian
tribe. … Why? The benefits are just too good. … Indian tribes are exempt from many federal
laws, collect their own taxes and generally can ignore the Bill of Rights, discriminate in favor of their
"tribe" members and operate their own justice system.
Bill Would Divide Hawaii by Race, Dole Out
Entitlements. Legislation to divide Hawaii along racial lines and hand out race-based government
benefits to as much as 20 percent of the state's population is moving through Congress, having attracted
almost no attention outside the state, despite its implications.
The
'Native Hawaiian' bill. The U.S. Senate is scheduled to begin debate soon
on S.147, the falsely named "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005." The
proponents of this bill, some motivated by seemingly benign purposes and others by simple greed,
argue that the legislation redresses ancient wrongs done to early Hawaiians by the United States.
Black Activists
Oppose Race-Based Hawaiian Government. Members of the black leadership network
Project 21 are expressing concern that legislation now under consideration in the U.S.
Senate conflicts with America's "melting pot" philosophy.
Pluribus Sine Unum. America's
motto is "E pluribus unum," Latin for "Out of many, one." Some U.S. senators seem to be reading it
backward. This week the Senate will consider legislation that would create an independent, race-based
government for Native Hawaiians. If the bill becomes law, it would create a racial spoils system that
would hand special privileges to up to one-fifth of the state's population — including many with only a
trace of Hawaiian blood. It could inspire mainland groups such as Hispanic separatists to seek similar
spoils, should they ever gain enough political leverage.
Did Anyone Ask the
Hawaiians? If I told you there would be a bill coming to the floor of the United States Senate
this week that would create a sovereign government based on race, would you believe me? You can be forgiven
for being skeptical. It sounds ridiculous.
Time to stand for unity.
A number of Republicans appear ready to jump on the Native Hawaiian bandwagon. The bill's chief sponsor is
Sen. Daniel Akaka, who has tried to get the legislation through Congress for several years. In the past,
he's been given a boost by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has also pushed for legislation to make Puerto Rico
a state, but most mainstream Republicans have steered clear. Not so of late.
Gonzales'
time to shine? Within the week, the Senate is expected to hold a vote on Senator
Akaka's Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Akaka's bill would institute an
extra-constitutional race-based government for native Hawaiians. The new government would
have jurisdiction over Hawaiian residents with "one drop" of native Hawaiian blood. Those
governed by this new, race-based government would not be subject to the same federal and
state tax laws as their non-native Hawaiian neighbors. The bill's opponents note that
this is surely is a recipe for racial conflict on the Hawaiian Islands.
Conservatives
facing uphill battle. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, S. 147,
sponsored by Hawaiian Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka, has drawn harsh criticism from conservatives
who see it as a new form of extra-constitutional race-based governing. Akaka's bill would set up a
separate governing entity to preside over residents with "one drop" of Native Hawaiian blood.
Hawaiian tribe: The
first business for the Senate when it reconvenes Sept. 6 after the summer recess will be passing a
bill giving native Hawaiians the same status as mainland Indian tribes, despite opposition by Republican
leaders and the Bush administration.
House votes to let
Native Hawaiians self-govern. Native Hawaiians should regain some of the self-governance powers
lost when the islands' queen was overthrown more than a century ago, the House decided Wednesday [10/24/2007].
The White House threatened a veto, saying the legislation that passed by a 261-153 vote would divide
Americans "along suspect lines of race and ethnicity."
The Editor says...
Isn't that exactly what the Congressional Black Caucus does? Or the NAACP? Or "Affirmative Action" quotas?
More information about
the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.
Status of
the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.
Politics Rules in Debate over Hawaiian Ethnicity
Bill. A bill that would have created a "Native Hawaiian Government" with special powers for
400,000 persons of native Hawaiian ancestry died in the U.S. Senate on June 8, when the measure came four
votes short of the 60 that were needed to keep it alive.
Black Activists
Criticize Congressional Plan to Create a Race-Based Hawaiian Government. Members of the black
leadership network Project 21 are expressing concern that the legislation directly conflicts with the
spirit of inclusion and equality that civil rights activists fought so hard to create.
Senate committee
approves Native Hawaiian bills. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved bills today to
extend self-government and self-determination to Native Hawaiians and to reauthorize federal housing
programs for them. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, said he did not expect the Native
Hawaiian government bill to reach the Senate floor until after May.
Bush
Administration Strongly Opposes Passage of H.R. 505 — Known as 'The Akaka Bill'. As the U.S.
Civil Rights Commission recently noted, this legislation "would discriminate on the basis of race or national
origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of
privilege."
Akaka Bill is Bad for
America. The proposed legislation would dedicate scarce financial resources to promote ethnic
divisions within our great nation and, at the same time, expand the role of government in an attempt to fix
a system that does not appear to be broken.
Race-baiting
the Aloha state. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act that was passed Wednesday [10/24/2007] by the House
is a stunning display of racial divisiveness. If enacted, it would further inflame tenuous race
relations nationwide by allowing an estimated 400,000 people across the country who claim native
Hawaiian ancestry to form their own body of government for negotiating with state and federal
governments.
Hawaii and
the Ethnic Grievance Industry: Under legislation that the House of Representatives has voted
261-153 to foist on Hawaii, [Hermann] Goering's role would be played by a panel empowered to decide who is
a "Native Hawaiian" and entitled to special privileges and immunities. Because there are perhaps only
7,000 "pure" Native Hawaiians, "Hawaiian blood" will inevitably be the criterion and the "one-drop rule"
likely will prevail. Goering would have approved of this racialist sorting-out.
Somewhat related:
Native Hawaiians Reclaiming Land.
More than 200 acres of land that belonged to the Kingdom of Hawaii before the United States took control a
century ago will be returned to Native Hawaiians, according to terms of a $200 million tentative settlement
announced Friday [1/18/2008].
The Editor says...
I don't get it. If the land belonged to the Kingdom of Hawaii, which is now the State of Hawaii,
why isn't it state property?
Native Hawaiians Occupy Palace.
A Native Hawaiian group that advocates sovereignty locked the gates of a historic palace Wednesday [4/30/2008]
in downtown Honolulu, saying it would carry out the business of what it considers the legitimate government of
the islands.
'Iolani Palace access
restored after appeal from DLNR. The back gate to the Iolani Palace grounds was opened around
2:15 p.m. today [4/30/2008] in response to a request from Gary Moniz, head of law enforcement for the state Department
of Land and Natural Resources. All entry to the grounds had been blocked since early this morning by a
Native Hawaiian organization that erected no-trespassing signs, saying the grounds are the property of the
"Hawaiian Kingdom."
The latest:
Hawaiian group demands restoration of the
monarchy. Surrounded by royal guards and the occasional tourist, Her Majesty Mahealani Kahau and her
government ministers hold court every day under a tent outside the palace of Hawaii's last monarch, passing laws and
discussing how to secure reparations for the Native Hawaiian people.
The Editor says...
I support Hawaii's right to secede, provided that Texas is allowed to secede as well.
Democratic platform adopts native
Hawaiian recognition. Recognition of native Hawaiians is back in the Democratic Party's
national platform. The wording is a bit different from the plank adopted in 2000, but the emphasis
on some form of native Hawaiian recognition by the federal government runs on the same track.
Affirmative
Action inflicts economic harm and then seeks to alleviate it. It professes to promote
the economic conditions and opportunities of so-called underprivileged minorities and simultaneously erects
new, formidable barriers for the people it sets out to benefit. It bestows special favors through the
apparatus of politics but also handicaps its beneficiaries through economic restrictions and mandates.
Affirmative
Action: A Counterproductive Policy: Affirmative action was originally conceived because it
was thought that simply stopping discrimination against minorities would not overcome the results of past
employment and promotion patterns. Prior to the 1960s, employers frequently hired by word of mouth and,
consequently, friends or relatives of current employees were more likely to be hired. President Kennedy's
executive order 10,925 implied equal access and nothing else. The system that has evolved
since is a perversion of the original intent of affirmative action.
The
Ethics of Affirmative Action: Affirmative action has troubled the American political landscape
for over three decades. Sooner or later, every ethicist must confront the dilemmas it and a variety of
closely related policies – multicultural education, diversity management, sensitivity training
sessions – pose.
Color Bind: Racial preferences
carry a high price.
Affirmative Action or Equal
Opportunity? Racial and ethnic preferences perversely offer benefits to successful members
of "disadvantaged" groups, while passing over struggling members of the majority. The result is less
equity, and a heightening of group resentments.
Bush Backs Racial
Preferences: Contradicting a campaign pledge, the Bush administration backs constitutionally
dubious racial set-asides of government contracts.
Bush administration supports racial
preferences: Never-Ending Supreme Court Case Has Bush Fighting for Affirmative Action. Back
when he was just a hopeful candidate with his eye on the White House, George W. Bush expressed
concerns about affirmative action. "I don't like quotas," Bush said during the third presidential
debate against former Vice President Al Gore in October. "Quotas tend to pit one group of people
against another. Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way that America is all about."
But the Bush administration's Justice Department is set to defend the policy of awarding some government
contracts based on race when it argues the remnants of a long-running case returning to the Supreme Court
this fall.
Affirmative
Action Loses In Court: A federal district court judge on Thursday ordered the city of Atlanta
to pay damages and attorney's fees for wrongly setting aside 34 percent of all state contracts for businesses
owned by minorities and women.
Racial Double
Standards: A measure of accommodation is accorded children because they are not adults and thus
not to be held to the same accountability standards. But should that same accommodation be accorded to a race
of people?
Affirmative Action or Equal
Opportunity? Racial and ethnic preferences perversely offer benefits to successful members of
"disadvantaged" groups, while passing over struggling members of the majority. The result is less
equity, and a heightening of group resentments.
Affirmative
Action Publications presented by the Center for Equal Opportunity.
Back to the top of this page
Back to the Home page
|
|
