Tag Archives: racial quotas

President Trump goes after universities’ racially-discriminatory ‘Affirmative Action’ admissions policy

Reason No. __ why I love President Trump.

Although Affirmative Action is supposed to right historical wrongs of racial discrimination, the policy in action has devolved into one of racial quotas that benefit often-unqualified “minority” applicants, to the disadvantage of qualified “whites”.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court last year, in Fisher v. University of Texas, ruled 4-3 that race-based admissions are constitutional.

Now, President Trump means to do something about this injustice.

According to Charlie Savage of the New York Times, August 1, 2017:

The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on ‘investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.’

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, ‘intentional race-based discrimination,’ cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.

Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.

It is not just qualified whites who are discriminated against by U.S. universities’ Affirmative Action racial quota policies, nor are blacks and Latinos the only applicants who are unjustly favored.

According to a well-sourced and -researched article by Ron Unz, “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” in The American Conservative:

  • Jews are disproportionately admitted to elite Ivy League universities, far above their percentage in U.S. population and despite a a sharp decline in U.S. Jewish achievement in the last 10 years. In fact, Unz asserts the oft-cited claim that Jews’ average IQ is 10-15 points higher than the overall population is a myth.
  • In contrast, although there has been a sharp rise in Asian American achievement in merit-based indicators, such as National Merit Scholars, that achievement is not reflected in their admission to East coast Ivy League universities like Harvard/Yale, which point to an anti-Asian admissions quota.
  • But there’s a group who are even more discriminated against than Asians: non-Jewish whites are the most under-represented group of all.

A quote from Unz’s article:

“based on factors of objective academic performance and population size, we would expect Asians to outnumber Jews by perhaps five to one at our top national universities; instead, the total Jewish numbers across the Ivy League are actually 40 percent higher. This implies that Jewish enrollment is roughly 600 percent greater relative to Asians than should be expected under a strictly meritocratic admissions system…. The key factor is that although Jewish academic achievement has apparently plummeted in recent decades, non-Jewish whites seem to have remained relatively unchanged in their performance, which might be expected in such a large and diverse population….

Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores…. Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students….

In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

Given university admissions policies’ systematic discrimination against qualified Asians, it’s a mystery why so many American Asians are Democrats. Asians, like whites, have the lowest crime rates, and should be natural conservatives.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

Please pray for President Trump!

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

PC madness: City of Phoenix recruits lifeguards who can't swim

drowning in debt

Pope Benedict 16th called it the Dictatorship of Relativism. He wrote:
In his futuristic novel Brave New World, the British author Aldous Huxley had predicted in 1932 that falsification would be the decisive element of modernity. In a false reality with its false truth – or the absence of truth altogether – nothing, in the final analysis, is important any more. There is no truth, there is no standpoint. Today, in fact, truth is regarded as far too subjective a concept for us to find therein a universally valid standard. The distinction between genuine and fake seems to have been abolished. Everything is to some extent negotiable.
A sub-division of that dictatorship is the Tyranny of Diversity.
Judicial Watch reports April 3, 2013, that “In a staggering case of affirmative action gone wild,” the city government of Phoenix, capitol of Arizona and America’s 6th largest city, is recruiting minorities to be lifeguards at public pools even if they’re not good swimmers. It’s all in the name of diversity.
On its official website. the city proudly declares that “diversity” is among Phoenix’s “vision and values”:

We Value and Respect Diversity
Understanding diversity helps us to work together and serve our community. Diversity is more than gender and race; it encompasses our uniqueness and individuality. By embracing our differences, we find many paths to success. We put this belief into action to provide effective services to our diverse community.

Evidently officials are willing to compromise those “effective services” at 29 public swimming pools spread throughout the city. To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.”
Kelly Martinez, a Phoenix official, explains that the pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that. The kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”
To help diversify its lifeguard ranks, the city raised about $15,000 over the past two years in scholarships to offset the cost of lifeguard-certification courses. Recruits who pass a swim test at the end can apply to be city lifeguards.
One of the recruits is high school junior Jesus Jimenez. He didn’t grow up going to pools with his family but likes the idea of lifeguarding. If he is selected to be a lifeguard, other pool staff will work with him on his swimming skills all summer.
Judicial Watch points out Phoenix’s recruitment of minority lifeguards is part of a national trend to boost the minority workforce at whatever cost. Under Obama we have seen a lot of this at the federal level through a variety of specially-designed government programs that give ethnic minorities special treatment at all federal agencies as well as medical and agricultural fields, among others.
Earlier this year the administration made history by hiring the government’s first “Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity” to mastermind a multi-million-dollar effort that boosts the number of minorities in biomedical research and slashes discrimination in the federal grant process. The effort was initially launched last year after a government-sanctioned study uncovered a “disturbing and disheartening” lack of racial diversity in the field.
Before that the administration created a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies and Obama appointed a “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help advance the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs. Who could forget the race and gender employment quotas required at private financial institutions under Obama’s financial reform measure (known as the Dodd-Frank bill) to overhaul Wall Street? It’s all in the name of diversity.
screwthetaxpayer
And of course, it’s the taxpayer who gets screwed because we are paying for all these “diversity” programs.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama called this rabid black racist a great man

Yesterday, Breitbart.com released a tape from Obama’s college days which Andrew Breitbart before his sudden death on March 1 had promised would do the job of vetting neglected by the media in 2008. In this video, Obama extolled Derrick Bell, then a prof at Harvard Law School, as a great man.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3qShugQ9I&feature=player_embedded]
In my post on the video, I had provided a description of Bell from Wikipedia. Now, we have a better description, penned by John Perazzo for FrontPageMag.com, March 9, 2012. Here are excerpts:

“[…] by the time Barack Obama was delivering his glowing remarks about Derrick Bell in 1991, the professor had already established—and would continue to cultivate for another two decades—a reputation as someone who thoroughly, resolutely detested the United States and who viewed the nation’s institutions and its people as irremediably racist. In short, until his death last October at the age of 80, Bell was secular academia’s version of Jeremiah Wright—a raging, fulminating racist without the clergyman’s robe. And something about his philosophy resonated strongly with Barack Obama.

Derrick Bell is best known as the founding father of Critical Race Theory, an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical Race Theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently its legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. A logical derivative of this premise, according to Critical Race Theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Such a perspective’s implications for the ability of civil society to function at all, are nothing short of monumental.

Further, Critical Race Theory holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in America’s national character, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent character flaws of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.” […]

Ideological conformity among blacks was of the utmost importance to Bell, since wherever he looked, he saw white racism. […]  By Bell’s reckoning, “the racism that made slavery feasible” was “far from dead.” He added: “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”  Bell also railed against the racism that motivated acts of white-on-black crime, lamenting that “even our lives … are threatened because of our color.” That claim did not square with the fact that more than 90 percent of African American murder victims nationwide are actually killed by fellow blacks, but it made for a nice sound bite. And in fact, Bell did not entirely turn a blind eye to the epidemic of black-on-black crime. That phenomenon, he explained, was itself a reaction to white oppression: “Victimized themselves by an uncaring society, some blacks vent their rage on victims like themselves.” In other words, whenever something bad happens, it is always the fault of whites.

As Bell saw things, white malevolence knew no bounds. In one of his writings, he mused that if scientists were to someday develop a magical pill that could transform any black person who consumed it into a perfectly law-abiding individual, whites would undoubtedly conspire to destroy it so as to prevent such an effect. Why? Because black crime, he explained, benefits many whites such as those who profit from the manufacture of prison uniforms. Wholly disgusted by the white race, Bell predicted that eventually America would witness the rise of charismatic new black leaders who, in the interests of retribution, would “urge that instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.” Presumably this was some of the lofty “scholarship” that so impressed Barack Obama.

Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, whose stated aim is “to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Moreover, the publication’s guiding principle is: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” In 1999 Bell signed on to a Race Traitor article that stated: “If the task of the nineteenth century was to overthrow slavery, and the task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation, the key to solving this country’s problems in the twenty-first century is to abolish the white race as a social category—in other words, eradicate white supremacy entirely.” Among Bell’s fellow signatories were Pete Seeger, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

So this was Derrick Bell, the man whom Barack Obama feted on that 1991 day at Harvard, just four years before Obama was to launch his own political career in the home of two America-hating Marxists in Chicago—Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

[…] a 33-year-old Obama routinely assigned works authored by Bell—including the latter’s racialist interpretations of seminal civil-rights cases—as required readings in the courses he taught at the University of Chicago Law School in 1994. To be sure, Bell’s work appeared on Obama’s syllabus more frequently than that of any other author—a clear indication of Obama’s high regard for Bell’s scholarship.

Still more recent was Obama’s alliance with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn—an alliance that shifted into high gear when Obama was 34 and remained in high gear (via his collaboration with Ayers on the radical Chicago Annenberg Challenge) until Obama was at least 38. And of course Obama’s attendance at (and his monetary contributions to) Jeremiah Wright‘s famously racist church from approximately age 27 until he was 47, says something noteworthy about his mindset during those years as well.

Pro-Obama automatons will dismiss these and all other references to Obama’s alliances as nothing more than mean-spirited attempts to smear a great man by way of innuendo and “guilt-by-association.” By contrast, people with a capacity to reason can surely understand that there is something far more profound at play here. In the final analysis, people should be free to throw their support behind a socialist who has spent his entire adult life allying himself with America-hating radicals and Marxists, if that is whom they choose to embrace. But when doing so, it is vital that they at least be cognizant of the fact that they are indeed backing such an individual.”

Now we know why Obama’s Department of Justice refused to prosecute the racist New Black Panthers for their intimidation of white voters in the 2008 elections. As Obama’s henchman Attorney General Eric Holder put it, that’s because the New Black Panthers (NBP) “are my people.”
And who are the NBP whom Holder calls his people? Here’s NBP leader “King” Samir Shabazz captured on video saying he hates all white people, “every single one of them,” and calling for the killing of all white babies.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p50qHzC01E0]
In other words, the New Black Panthers are exactly what Derrick Bell had advocated: “instead of [African Americans] killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.
Now we know why Obama had marched with the New Black Panthers in 2007.

Obama marching with NBP, Selma, Alabama, 2007.


~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0